A comparative analysis of metadata best practices and guidelines: issues and implications

Through a comparative analysis of local institutions' metadata guidelines based on Dublin Core DC metadata, the study examines variations and commonalities in terms of metadata usage and naming conventions and the usage of refinement qualifiers and encoding standards. The study also examines the influence of subject domain and resource type in naming conventions. The study results evince divergence across metadata guidelines especially designed for resource and domain specific repositories. The naming conventions indicate that DC metadata semantics may be too broad to describe the characteristics of domain and resource specific repositories, unlike cross-domain and heterogeneous resource types. The employment of a high number of refinement qualifiers may engender a higher degree of semantic specificity for describing heterogeneous resource types. The study provides insights into metadata semantics in relation to resource type, subject domain, and refinement qualifiers. The study also brings forth insights for metadata planning, quality control, and interoperability.

[1]  Eileen Quam.  Informing and evaluating a metadata initiative: Usability and metadata studies in Minnesota's Foundations Project , 2001, Gov. Inf. Q..

[2]  J. Barton,et al.  Quality assurance for digital learning object repositories: issues for the metadata creation process , 2004 .

[3]  Timothy W. Cole,et al.  Dublin Core Metadata Harvested Through OAI-PMH , 2008 .

[4]  Diane I. Hillmann,et al.  The Continuum of Metadata Quality: Defining, Expressing, Exploiting , 2004 .

[5]  Jung-ran Park.  Metadata Quality in Digital Repositories: A Survey of the Current State of the Art , 2009 .

[6]  Timothy W. Cole,et al.  Metadata for Special Collections in CONTENTdm: How to Improve Interoperability of Unique Fields Through OAI-PMH , 2009 .

[7]  Rebecca L. Lubas.  Defining Best Practices in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Metadata , 2009 .

[8]  Anne R. Diekema,et al.  Implications and Challenges of Educational Standards Metadata , 2009 .

[9]  Carole L. Palmer,et al.  Trends in metadata practices: a longitudinal study of collection federation , 2007, JCDL '07.

[10]  Vilas Wuwongse,et al.  Representing and Reasoning with Application Profiles Based on OWL and OWL/XDD , 2006, ASWC.

[11]  Kevin Clair.  Developing an audiovisual metadata application profile: A case study , 2008 .

[12]  Ana Alice Baptista,et al.  A panoramic view on metadata application profiles of the last decade , 2014, Int. J. Metadata Semant. Ontologies.

[13]  Mark A. Matienzo,et al.  The Digital Public Library of America Ingestion Ecosystem: Lessons Learned After One Year of Large-Scale Collaborative Metadata Aggregation , 2014, Dublin Core Conference.

[14]  Mara Nikolaidou,et al.  A multi-layer metadata schema for digital folklore collections , 2007, J. Inf. Sci..

[15]  Tung-Ran Park,et al.  Semantic interoperability and metadata quality : An analysis of metadata item records of digital image collections , 2006 .

[16]  Jung-ran Park,et al.  Dublin Core metadata semantics: an analysis of the perspectives of information professionals , 2009, J. Inf. Sci..

[17]  Hollie White,et al.  A Metadata Best Practice for a Scientific Data Repository , 2009 .

[18]  Jin Ma,et al.  Managing metadata for digital projects , 2006 .

[19]  Emily Symonds,et al.  Documenting Local Procedures: The Development of Standard Digitization Processes Through the Dear Comrade Project , 2009 .