LIS 688METADATAKyle Butler

April 24, 2012

METADATA STANDARDS AND DUBLIN CORE

I: Introduction

The term “Metadata” is one that holds many different meanings.

Within the Library and Information Studies community, it has been

accepted for many years to mean data about other data. Metadata is needed

in order for individuals to describe and organize electronic and web

resources, so they could effectively retrieve them in the future. In order to

ward off potential issues with classifying and describing items, the

information community uses a series of accepted metadata standards.

The purpose of this paper is to conduct a literature review on works

that discuss metadata standards, with a particular focus on Dublin Core. In

the search to find scholarly articles on metadata standards and Dublin Core,

it seemed as though the literature could be divided into a pair of categories:

those which focus on the general aspects of metadata, and those that

provide more in-depth studies geared towards an audience with a greater

grasp of the subject at hand. A number of sources deliver a broad picture of

what standards actually are, define the various terms, and are suited for

people who are trying to gain a basic understanding of metadata.

II: Introducing Metadata Standards

1 | P a g e

According to authors Marcia Lei Zeng and Jian Qin, metadata

standards are named element sets and/or schemas that have been approved

by a national or international standard body, a community, or a professional

association. (Zeng, 2008) There are various types of metadata standards,

including: Data Structure Standards, Data Content Standards, Data Value

Standards, and Data Exchange Standards. Metadata standards were

devised as a means of fixing issues regarding resource description and

discovery problems. Essentially, they provide a way for people to organize

information and make it accessible. They also enable people to share

information with other users and electronic information repositories.

The creation of metadata standards remains a relatively recent

invention. There are several different types of metadata standards, all of

which have been developed in the past two decades. Dublin Core was the

first such standard developed in 1995, but many others followed, including

Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), Encoded Archival

Description (EAD) and Categories for the Description of Works of Art

(CDWA). Though each standard has its own unique set of characteristics,

they all function through a series of elements, which serve as a means of

describing the various properties of an object or resource.

III: Metadata Standards Sources

One of the better resources that presents an introduction to metadata

and its standards can be found in a booklet entitled “Understanding

2 | P a g e

Metadata” (National Information Standards Organization, 2004). A

revision of “Metadata Made Simpler: A Guide to Libraries”, this free guide

begins by defining what metadata actually is, its importance to cataloging,

and how it is structured. The guide proceeds to delve into descriptions of

the major metadata standards, including EAD, MODS, VRA, as well as

Dublin Core. The guide also contains a sample Dublin Core entry so that

readers can see firsthand examples of how one would fill the majority of

DC’s 15 element fields. Perhaps this resource’s greatest attribute, however,

is a list of related sources on metadata, ranging from General Sources to

Schemas to Crosswalks, along with a handy glossary of terms. The booklet

is published by NISO, which identifies, develops, and maintains technical

standards in a constantly changing digital market.

Another good, and slightly more recent source when it comes to

providing information about metadata standards in a general sense is

“Metadata Standards and Applications” (Hillmann, 2008). This report

published in Serials Librarian is interesting in that it divides metadata

standards into five distinct categories. First, there is Administrative

Metadata, focusing on who created the data, when it was created, and

whether or not a source has been recently updated and/or approved.

Descriptive Metadata centers on general information that traditional

catalogers understand, including Title, Author, Subject, Format, and

Relation. A third category, Access/Use Metadata is basically self-

explanatory, containing information about rights and management.

3 | P a g e

Preservation Metadata is designed to ensure access to information is

maintained over a lengthy period of time. Hillmann and her co-authors

argue that the digital world is dynamic and constantly changing, and that

preservation metadata must be able to handle these updates. Finally,

Structural Metadata relates files to each other. While this source does not

go into as much detail about the individual standards, choosing to focus on

Dublin Core and MODS, it does provide a great review of metadata as a

whole and argues that while some librarians may be resistant to changes,

change is already here, and accepting metadata standards is essential in

order to effectively organize information in the digital age.

“Metadata For Digital Collections: A How-To-Do-It Manual”

(Miller, 2011) is one of the few books I encountered, and is also one of the

most recent sources available that touches on metadata-related information.

Like the previous publications, Miller gives a general overview of what

metadata is and introduces readers to some of the metadata standards,

namely Dublin Core and MODS. However, unlike the other sources, this

book delves into the world of Visual Resources Association Core Categories.

Additionally, Miller discusses controlled vocabularies for improved resource

discovery, and, as the title would indicate, spends the most time on

metadata for digital collections.

While the aforementioned resources tend to deliver more general

accounts of the various standards and of metadata itself, there are also

4 | P a g e

several articles and publications that have a much narrower focus devoted

towards Metadata standards. One such source appeared in Library

Technology Reports, fittingly entitled “Metadata Standards.” Though the

work is somewhat dated, having been published in 2002, it nevertheless

serves as a unique source. While Hillman broke down metadata standards

into five different categories, this report goes a step further, subdividing the

standards into six areas. The first area consists of General Metadata

Standards, which are the most common and widely accepted standards to

date, and include Dublin Core, EAD, and MODS. The second area;

Transportation Models, assists in the interoperability, transfer, and

transport of information among standards, and include Resource

Description Framework (RDF) and Extensive Markup Language (XML).

Next are Educational Metadata Standards, which exist in order to teach

both professors and educators to utilize the electronic environment as a

learning tool. The fourth area features Media Specific standards, covering

the various types of media in electronic form, a list which includes music,

art, audio, and streaming video. Preservation Metadata Standards manage

and keep digital objects for generations to come, through standards such as

the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) and the Open

Archival Information System (OAIS). Last but not least, Rights Metadata

Standards deal with the issues of copyrighting digital items, and these work

in tandem with some of the other previously listed groups. This report

5 | P a g e

effectively breaks down each of the standards, expresses their benefits, as

well as dictating their potential for future projects.

Another of the journal articles encountered in researching literature

on metadata standards appeared in Library Technology Reports. (Eden,

2005). This report discusses the various standards with a major emphasis

on recent efforts by the Library of Congress to develop new metadata

standards as well as crosswalks. The article concluded in a report on the

stability and development of current standards that the “widespread use of

the MARC format for the exchange of bibliographic information and for

managing library operations will not change for the foreseeable future.”

However, many limitations of MARC, like lack of scalability to digital

materials are not listed in that report. In comparison to the other resources,

this report is far more technical but should be of benefit to metadata

professionals in the field.

One final source about metadata standards is Alexander’s article on

“Core Cataloging and Metadata Standards and Best Practices.”

(Alexander, 2008) She begins by identifying the different standards,

covering the likes of Dublin Core, XML, MODS, and EAD, and covers

examples of mixing schemas. The core standards are identified with an

emphasis on science and technology disciplines, but can still be useful for

librarians in all fields. The article is designed to “assist librarians who will

6 | P a g e

implement these practices or will advocate the needs of the library and

information science profession.”

IV: Introducing Dublin Core

There is no shortage of options when it comes to selecting a particular

metadata standard. From EAD to VRA to MODS to CDWA, lots of standards

have been created over the past two decades as means of describing,

sharing, and organizing resources. However, the first and arguably most

famous standard remains Dublin Core (DC). Created in 1995, the Dublin

Core is a metadata standard used to supplement existing methods for

searching and indexing web-based metadata, and can be utilized regardless

of whether a resource in question is an electronic document or a real

“tangible” object. Dublin Core originally consisted of a set of 13 descriptive

definitions, before being expanded to 15 elements. The Dublin Core

Metadata Element Set (DCMES) is a core set of elements shared across

disciplines or within an organization needing to organize and classify

information. These elements include Contributor, Coverage, Creator, Date,

Description, Format, Identifier, Language, Publisher, Relation, Rights,

Source, Subject, Title, and Type. Each element comes with a specific

definition so users are clear what sort of information fits within the element.

Nearly twenty years after its creation, Dublin Core remains an

enormously popular choice compared to other metadata standards. There

are numerous benefits to using the Dublin Core standard. A great deal of

7 | P a g e

Dublin Core’s popularity derives from the fact that it remains a relatively

simple metadata standard, and can easily be used by people who may not be

experts in the field of metadata. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative

promotes this fact, pointing out that anyone can use the DC metadata to

describe the resources of an information system. Additionally, many digital

archives of physical objects have started to make use of Dublin Core over

the past several years. Also, Dublin Core Metadata is used by a variety of

groups; an impressive list that includes not only libraries, but educational

organizations, governmental institutions, businesses, corporations, and by

the scientific research sector.

V: Dublin Core Sources

As was the case with the works on metadata standards, the sources on

Dublin Core range from basic articles that deliver a general overview of the

DC standard to more complex articles better geared towards professionals

in the field. One of the best pieces of literature on Dublin Core that can be

utilized by just about anybody is “A Grammar of Dublin Core” (Baker,

2000). Though the source is slightly older than some of the others on the

topic, it still stands as one of the best introductory guides to Dublin Core for

individuals who are first learning about metadata standards. In this guide,

Baker points out that while some would describe Dublin Core as a type of

modern-day card catalog or exchange format, he argues that DC should

really be considered an actual language for making statements about

8 | P a g e

particular types of resources. He then delves into the subjects of elements,

qualifiers, and issues surrounding Dublin Core. Again, though the source is

slightly dated and the world of metadata standards has been altered

dramatically since its publication, this guide is still a great tool for

introducing the basics of Dublin Core and explaining its importance to

metadata and classification.

Twelve years after authoring a guide on the basics of Dublin Core,

Baker also authored another work on DC, entitled “Libraries, Languages

of Description, and Linked Data: A Dublin Core Perspective.” (Baker,

2012) This resource is considerably more technical than Baker’s previous

work. The article focuses on how the Dublin Core which was originally seen

as a simplified record format, came increasingly to be seen as an RDF

vocabulary for use in metadata based on a “statement” model, and how new

approaches to metadata evolved to bridge the gap between these models.

Baker also examines how Dublin Core issues also exemplify problems that

must be fixed in order to ensure that library data remains compatible with

other data sources, while still meeting quality and consistency standards.

Another solid source that takes a look at Dublin Core and application

profiles is an article published in Library Trends, “Describing Scholarly

Works with Dublin Core: A Functional Approach” (Allinson, 2008).

This article discusses how the Scholarly Works Application Profile (SWAP)

was developed. SWAP is a Dublin Core application profile for describing

9 | P a g e

scholarly texts. In this article, Allinson also talks about how the Dublin Core

Metadata Initiative’s “Singapore Framework” functions, by incorporating

the various elements of Application Profile building as defined by this

framework. It’s a source definitely geared towards people already well-

versed in the subjects of metadata and Dublin Core.

A final source is an analysis from Information Technology and

Libraries. “Dublin Core, DSpace, and a Brief Analysis of Three

University Repositories.” (Kurtz, 2010). Kurtz provides an overview of

Dublin Core, including an explanation of its foundation as well as the

elements before delving into DSpace. She writes that DSpace “simplifies the

metadata markup process by using terminology that is different from DC

standards”. However, while examining the institutional repositories of three

universities: University of Washington, New Mexico University, and Ohio

State University, he discovers that when DSpace is utilized there are

several consistency issues and some records are “abysmal”. She concludes

that librarian intervention during the record-creation process is an

improvement over self-archiving. This source isn’t terribly technical, but still

better suited for those with metadata expertise.

VI: Conclusion

10 | P a g e

It was clear at an early stage of the research process that I was

finding two types of literature on metadata standards and DC: general

sources for people new to the topic, and more specific sources for experts in

the field. I tried to ensure that both types of literature were well

represented in this review. The information community consists of people

who are well-versed in metadata, and those who may not be as familiar with

metadata and its characteristics. However, there is no question that

metadata standards are here to stay, and they will only be increasing in

importance as time passes. Many librarians and information specialists will

have to become at least somewhat familiar with how metadata operates.

Fortunately, there are many solid articles and reports out there that can

assist them in understanding a subject that plays a major role in how

information is organized and accessed.

WORKS CITED

11 | P a g e

Alexander, Mary S. (2008) “Core Cataloging and Metadata Standards

and Best Practices.” University of Alabama Libraries.

Allinson, June. (2008). “Describing Scholarly Works with Dublin

Core: A Functional Approach.” Library Trends, 57, (2): 221-243.

Baker, Thomas (2000). “A Grammar of Dublin Core” D-Lib Magazine,

6 (10). Available at

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/baker/10baker.html

Baker, Thomas. (2012). “Libraries, Languages of Description, and

Linked Data: A Dublin Core Perspective.” Library Hi-Tech, 30 (1)

116-133.

Eden, Brad. Library Technology Reports, (2005), 41 (6), 20-33.

Hillmann, D.I., Marker, R., & Brady, C. (May 2008). “Metadata

Standards and Applications.” Serials Librarian, 54 (1) 7-21.

Kurtz, Mary. (2010). “Dublin Core, DSpace, and a Brief Analysis of

Three University Repositories.” Information Technology and

Libraries, Chicago: Library and Information Technology Association,

29, (1): 40-46

Metadata Standards. (2002) Library Technology Reports 38 (5) 19-

60.

12 | P a g e

Miller, Steven J. (2011). “Metadata for Digital Collections: A How-

To-Do-It Manual.” New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

National Information Standards Organization (2004).

“Understanding Metadata.” Bethesda, Md: NISO Press.

Zeng, M.L. & Qin, J. (2008) “Metadata.” New York: Neal-Schuman

Publishers, p. 322.

13 | P a g e