Minutes of January 9, 2003 Meeting

Ruth Bogan, Rhonda Marker, Mary Beth Weber, Yang Yu

1. RU Core Data Element Registry

The group reviewed the draft RU Core Data Element Registry, which contains the 9 descriptive elements of RU Core. All the elements are mandatory if present in the item being described. It was decided that they should all be repeatable except the Identifier. Two elements generated discussion: Emanator, and Identifier.

We discussed the advisability of naming the "Emanator" element as such, since the label (for end-users) will be Publisher/Distributor and the definition is exactly the same as the Dublin Core definition for DC Publisher. When we first compared many different types of metadata to determine which ones are "core," that is, universally applicable, we noticed that the metadata schemes for visual images do not have a "publisher" element. CDWA, for example, does not accommodate a publisher explicitly through an element [http://www.getty.edu/research/institute/standards/intrometadata/3_crosswalks/index.html] VRA Core 3.0 has no element that maps to DC.Publisher even though VRA Core is intended to describe "works of visual culture as well as the images that document them" [http://www.vraweb.org/vracore3.htm]. However, some entity is responsible for making them available. At that time, we considered other terms that would apply: Originator, Issuing Agent; but came around to Emanator because it does not have other connotations (originator=creator; issuing agent=vendor). For lack of a better non-text-bound term we continue to use Emanator.

We discussed the two aspects of an ID number: an ID for the resource itself and an ID for the record. We decided that for purposes of the descriptive metadata, we would define the Identifier for the resource itself (i.e., describing the item). Although the metadata record could point to multiple manifestations of the resource (e.g., different formats of a visual image), it is important to have a unique, single reference to the resource.

2. Technical metadata

Our next task is to compile a list and registry of technical metadata for RU Core. METS (Metadata Encoding Transmission Standard) defines four categories of "administrative metadata:" technical metadata, source metadata, rights metadata, and digital provenance metadata. We identified some sources to begin with: METS, the NISO draft standard for technical metadata for digital still images, MPEG-7, Dublin Core Administrative Core, and the Library Technology Reports issue on metadata. Rhonda will compile a list of links. Working Group members will compile from each resource: a list of technical metadata elements; their definitions; and the source (e.g., DC-AC). We will share our lists before the next meeting, and from this comparison we will derive the CORE (required, universal) technical metadata elements.

3. Communication

In order to facilitate communication among Data Architects, Rhonda will arrange to set up a listserv for the work group.

4. Education and training

The Data Arch work group has been invited to give a 15-20 minute presentation on our progress at an April 9 event sponsored by the Training & Learning Advisory Committee and the Planning Committee. We will cover: the RU Core Registry; RU Core applications including LUNA, print-to-MARC conversion, and "minimal level" cataloging standards; and work to date on the technical metadata core.

Members of the work group will also conduct a hands-on metadata workshop on May 9. We need to provide Marilyn Wilt with a brief announcement ("blurb") by Friday. The work group will draft & edit the blurb via email this week.

Next meeting: The next meeting of the Data Architecture Work Group is Thursday, March 13, 2003 in the TSB conference room at the civilized hour of 10:00 a.m.

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/data_arch/minutes/data_arch_03-02-11.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries