Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 14 November 2014, At: 04:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Journal of Library MetadataPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjlm20
Metadata of Art andArchitecture ResearchDatabases: The Value ofAbstracts and Index Terms toAcademics, Librarians, andMuseum ProfessionalsErik Nemeth aa Research Databases Department , Getty ResearchInstitutePublished online: 14 Jan 2009.
To cite this article: Erik Nemeth (2009) Metadata of Art and Architecture ResearchDatabases: The Value of Abstracts and Index Terms to Academics, Librarians,and Museum Professionals , Journal of Library Metadata, 8:4, 293-313, DOI:10.1080/19386380802627117
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19386380802627117
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Metadata of Art and Architecture ResearchDatabases: The Value of Abstracts and Index
Terms to Academics, Librarians,and Museum Professionals
Erik Nemeth
ABSTRACT. Against a backdrop of increasing access to full text andthe perceived success of Web search engines, academic disciplines withhighly specialized, if not esoteric, nomenclature remain in need of speciallycrafted metadata. Art history and the study of architecture represent two suchdisciplines. Historically, field-specific research databases have maintainedcanons of citations complemented with descriptive abstracting and preciseindexing. Surveys of art and architectural historians identify the value ofabstracting and indexing to scholarly research. The perceived importanceindicates a need to integrate discipline-specific abstracts and vocabulariesinto the evolving Web-based infrastructure for searching of scholarly liter-ature and to enable the continued production of such metadata.
KEYWORDS. Research databases, abstracts, indexing, index terms, the-sauri, authoritative content
INTRODUCTION
In the information infrastructure of the Web, many scholars face anexpansion of discovery of documents relevant to academic inquiry. In
Erik Nemeth is Senior Data Specialist, Research Databases Department, GettyResearch Institute, 1200 Getty Center Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688(E-mail: [email protected]).
Journal of Library Metadata, Vol. 8(4) 2008C© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.
doi: 10.1080/19386380802627117 293
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
294 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
combination, the digitization of literature and the influence of interdisci-plinarity increase the pool of accessible documents and data applicable toa particular academic inquiry. Generalized Web search engines have set anexpectation of universal discovery, and efficiencies in producing digitizeddocuments hold promise for a commensurate degree of access. The expan-sion of discovery and access to material in digital form, however, raisesconcerns about meeting the expectations of scholars on efficient retrievalof authoritative content from a comprehensive set of literature. (Jeanneney,2007). The general Web-based method of searching by keyword on fulltext places the responsibility of determining relevant content on the scholar.Field-specific research databases assist the scholar by acting as a filter thatextracts authoritative content and supplies expert metadata.
As a producer of two field-specific research databases—the Bibliogra-phy of the History of Art (BHA) and the Avery Index to ArchitecturalPeriodicals—the Getty Research Institute (GRI) must understand howusers of such databases value abstracts and index terms. In 2006, theDepartment of Research Databases at the GRI conducted surveys of arthistorians and scholars and professionals in the field of architecture. Thesurveys specifically strove to capture the perceived usability and qualityof the content of BHA and the Avery Index and the perceived value of themetadata produced for individual citations. The results of the survey indi-cate a high level of satisfaction with the content of the databases and activeusage of the carefully crafted metadata. An analysis reveals that students,academics, and museum professionals all take advantage of abstracts andthat librarians, in particular, exploit index terms. The conclusion discussesthe implications for the need, role, and production of such metadata infuture incarnations of the Web.
Goal of the Surveys
The intent of the surveys was generally to check satisfaction with easeof use, scope, and coverage of the databases and to ascertain the valueof metadata such as abstracts and index terms produced specifically forthe databases. The fact that the surveys resided on the entry Web page toeach database suggests that participants were regular users of and posi-tively disposed toward the databases. In anticipation of positive responsesto questions on the general quality of the databases, the surveys strove toascertain the degree of satisfaction of users through specific questions onease of use and satisfaction with the content. A separate set of questionsfocused on the use and value of abstracts and index terms in identifying
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Erik Nemeth 295
relevant literature in scholarly research. With a closing question, the sur-veys solicited observations and opinions to identify potential improvementsto the database.
BACKGROUND
Historically, research databases have enabled scholars to locate authori-tative literature efficiently within a specific academic discipline. To providesuch a service, field-specific research databases have assessed the literatureof a particular academic field to create and maintain a canon of relevantdocuments, created citations for individual documents, enabled searchingof the citations, and provided aids for discerning the relevance of retrievedcitations. The central part of the process for production of such librarymetadata (Gilliland, 2008) depends on editors who write abstracts to ac-company the citations of the documents and index the citations using avetted, field-specific vocabulary. Because the review of cited documentsrequires new index terms, the editors, in turn, create terms that may thenalso become incorporated into field-specific thesauri. Contributions fromBHA to the Art & Architecture Thesaurus of the Getty Vocabularies are oneexample (Getty Vocabularies, 2008). By applying terms from a thesaurusthat complements the vocabulary contained in the documents themselves,a scholar may retrieve citations and, by reading the associated abstracts,determine the relevance of citations to a specific research question. Thecreation of effective abstracts, assigning of appropriate index terms, andproduction of thesauri require the expertise of field-specific editors, butthe costs associated with the manual nature of the process have promptedchallenges as to the need for such carefully crafted metadata. Similar tothe challenges faced by cataloging departments in libraries (Miksa, 2008),field-specific research databases must demonstrate a need for the metadataand devise a strategy for coexistence, or competition, with Web searchengines.
The emergence of digital access to full text and the perceived effec-tiveness of generalized Web search engines raise two important questionsfor producers of field-specific research databases. “How can the legacy offield-specific metadata be integrated into the evolving Web-based infras-tructure for searching of scholarly literature, and what is the feasibility ofcontinuing to abstract and index in Web-based systems of searching forscholarly literature?” The rapid pace of innovation and expansion of direc-tions of research of Web information (Fundulaki & Polyzotis, 2008) and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
296 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
knowledge management (Varde & Pei, 2008) challenge a precise predic-tion of how abstracts and indexing will fit into the infrastructure (Borgman,2008), but fostering access to the metadata increases the likelihood of in-clusion. As well-structured data, bibliographic records with abstracts andindexing lend themselves to export from proprietary systems and to meta-harvesting and metasearch engines (Woodley, 2008). In such a scenario, aresource such as WorldCat could communicate with field-specific researchdatabases to identify relevant documents within particular issues of pe-riodicals. The second question acknowledges the challenge posed by anexpanding publication and scope of literature in many disciplines. Expan-sion of literature beyond select academic and peer-reviewed publicationsand expansion of research in interdisciplinary directions (Rose, 2002) chal-lenge the ability of manual production of abstracts and indexing in keepingpace. Distributed production in Web 2.0 may provide for efficiencies inabstracting and indexing to allow expanded coverage of a discipline. Thedecision to invest in innovation of methods depends in part on the value ofsuch metadata as perceived by end users (Nicholas, Huntington, & Jamali,2007).
RESEARCH METHODS AND DATA
Survey Instrument and Promotion
The surveys comprised a total of 16 questions that queried responseson (a) general usage of the database, (b) quality of the database content,(c) usage of supplied abstracts and index terms, and (d) general informationabout the roles of users and their proficiency in using databases. Fourteenof the questions had a multiple-choice format, and two of the questionsallowed for free-text answers. Translations of the surveys accommodatedGerman-, French-, Italian-, and Spanish-speaking users.
The surveys appeared on the Web sites that provide access to BHA andthe Avery Index and on the pages of the Getty Web site that describe eachdatabase. In addition to capturing users upon access to the databases, activepromotion of the surveys occurred through listservs such as the H-ArtHistlist of the Art Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS/NA) as well asthrough direct e-mail. The surveys remained accessible for approximately1 year (March 2006–March 2007).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Erik Nemeth 297
Sample Size
A total of 570 users responded to the surveys. Figure 1 shows the loca-tions of the respondents, with users of BHA indicated in white and usersof the Avery Index indicated in black. The survey for BHA received 288responses, and the survey for the Avery Index received 282 responses. De-termining the precise percentage of the population that a sample representsposes a problem. The fact that several vendors distribute the databasesprecludes direct monitoring of usage. The vendors distribute BHA andthe Avery Index internationally to approximately 700 and 350 institutionalsubscribers, respectively. The subscribers can be ascertained; however, thepotential, let alone the actual, number of students, librarians, professors,curators, and other users who access BHA or the Avery Index is difficultto measure.
Some background on the types of institutions that subscribe to the twodatabases provides a sense of the total population of users. Subscribersdiffer in nature, geographic location, and size of the institution. Publiclibraries and universities in the United States and Europe are examples oflarge institutions with potentially thousands of users, and small museums
FIGURE 1. Locations of Respondents.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
298 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
and art galleries may have 100 or fewer users. Universities appear torepresent a common type of subscriber across vendors and may, therefore,serve as a basis to calculate the order of magnitude of the number of users.
Despite active promotion of the surveys worldwide, only a small fractionof users of the databases appears to have answered the surveys. Based onthe demographics gleaned from the survey, the samples appear to representthe range of users of each database.
Demographics
The sample represents users in North America, Europe, and Australia,which are the primary geographic regions in which the databases are ac-cessible. A smattering of responses from the Middle East, Asia, and LatinAmerica provided a sense that interest in the databases also might exist andexpand in other geographic regions. A few questions collected informationon the range of roles and institutional affiliations of users. A majority ofusers appear to be students and librarians as opposed to academics andmuseum professionals (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). For a self-assessed skill levelin using the databases, librarians appear more confident than students andprofessors. The proportions of roles are relatively consistent for users ofBHA and the Avery Index, with a larger number of museum professionalsfor BHA and a larger number of undergraduate students for the AveryIndex. The majority of the other users were postdoctoral fellows, libraryassistants, or curatorial assistants. Thus, most users were associated withan educational institution (Figure 3).
Statistical Significance
The analysis of the responses needed to take into consideration the like-lihood of chance variation within the population of users of the databases.Given that participants were self-selected, the responses to questions on theoverall quality of the databases were expected to be positive. The concernwas whether or not those who happened to take the survey were by chancethose who would answer favorably to the more specific questions aboutabstracts and index terms (e.g., “Do you read the abstract as a source of re-search?”). For the four yes-or-no questions about the value of abstracts andindex terms, the null hypothesis assumed 50% affirmation to allow for amaximum standard error. A “one-tailed z-test” for the responses produceda P value of less than 1% for each question in both surveys, indicatinghighly statistically significant results.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Erik Nemeth 299
FIGURE 2.1. BHA—Roles and Skill Levels.
FIGURE 2.2. Avery Index—Roles and Skill Levels.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
300 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
FIGURE 3. Professional Affiliation.
RESULTS AND ANALYSES
The results and analyses will be presented in the order that the questionsappeared in the surveys: frequency of use, overall quality of the databases,value of abstracts and indexing, and suggestions on improvement.
Frequency of Use
The frequency with which a particular respondent makes use of adatabase bears on the meaning of results. Monthly usage would suggestrelatively intimate familiarity with the represented literature and the ac-companying metadata, whereas respondents who use the databases onlyonce or a few times a year may not be as familiar with the content andfeatures of the database. Comparing frequency of use against role revealswhether or not a particular group of users had greater exposure to thedatabases than others.
The frequency of use varied in similar ways for both databases (Fig-ures 4.1 and 4.2). Weekly was the greatest frequency of use, followed bymonthly usage. In the case of BHA, “daily usage” followed “a few times ayear,” whereas in the case of the Avery Index, librarians appeared to bringdaily usage quite close to “a few times a year.” All types of users, with the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Erik Nemeth 301
FIGURE 4.1. BHA—Frequency of Use by Role.
FIGURE 4.2. Avery Index—Frequency of Use by Role.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
302 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
exception of undergraduate students, appeared to follow the usage trendsfor each database. For both databases, undergraduate students appearednot to use the databases daily, and weekly, monthly, and “a few times ayear” usages were similar.
Given that a majority of the usage was either monthly or of greaterfrequency, the users could be assumed to be quite familiar with the coverageand metadata of both databases. The high level of familiarity suggests aninformed response on questions regarding the quality of the content andusefulness of the metadata.
Overall Quality of the Databases
Four questions inquired about the quality and ease of use of the data-bases. Each of the questions had the same options for response as shownalong the horizontal axes in Figures 5.1 and 5.2. Grouping the responsesprovided an overall impression of the perceived quality and usefulness ofeach database, while allowing comparison of the individual questions.
About 70% of the respondents indicated either agreement or strongagreement on the overall quality and usefulness of the databases. The qual-ity of information, usefulness, and ease of use showed similar distributions
FIGURE 5.1. BHA—Quality and Usability.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Erik Nemeth 303
FIGURE 5.2. Avery Index—Quality and Usability.
across the degrees of agreement. On the question of “meets my researchneeds,” a larger proportion of respondents agreed as opposed to stronglyagreeing. A number of factors outside the purview of the database, suchas coverage of a particular geographic region or access to full text, mightincline a user to feel that his or her research needs are not completely met,while the database is effectively fulfilling a prescribed scope of coverage.Such subtleties might be further explored through the free-text responsesto a general question regarding potential improvements that was posed atthe end of each survey.
The responses to each of the four questions and the collective viewindicate an overall positive perception of the databases. Largely positiveresponses that strongly affirmed the quality of the databases were notsurprising, since posting the survey at the search interface to the databasesmade the survey self-selecting for regular users. Presumably the metadataassociated with the records in the databases contributed to the sense ofsatisfaction of the users, but whether or not the value was overtly perceivedcannot be inferred from the high-level questions on quality. To gain moreprecise insight, the survey also delved into more detail on the specificperceptions of abstracts and index terms provided with citation records.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
304 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
The Value of Abstracting and Indexing: Perceptions of End Users
Four questions probed the awareness of users of abstracts and indexterms that accompany records in the databases. Two questions inquiredabout abstracts and two similar questions inquired about index terms.Figures 6.1 and 6.2 show the questions and responses for the surveysof BHA and the Avery Index users, respectively. The responses affirmthe awareness and perceived value of abstracts and index terms for bothdatabases. Users of BHA had a slightly more favorable response, but at least68% of users of each database demonstrated awareness and active use ofthe metadata. The use of abstracts to evaluate the relevance of a citation hadthe strongest affirmation, with 94% and 92% of the respondents indicatingsuch usage for BHA and the Avery Index, respectively. Interestingly, amajority of users also appear to value the abstract as a source of research.Although users also used index terms for evaluating relevance, guidingresearch was the primary use of index terms in both databases.
The stronger affirmation of the value of abstracts might be due to directuse in evaluating relevance compared to the indirect use of index termsin searching for records. The level of awareness of the role of indexing
FIGURE 6.1. BHA—Value of Abstracts and Index Terms.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Erik Nemeth 305
FIGURE 6.2. Avery Index—Value of Abstracts and Index Terms.
in connecting search terms to citations may influence whether or not arespondent reads index terms associated with a record. Informing users onthe role of index terms and enabling users to familiarize themselves withthe terms remains a challenge for effective application of a thesaurus inconjunction with a search interface.
Examining the responses according to roles of respondents revealed afew trends. As seen in Figures 7.1 and 7.2, the distinct types of usersshowed degrees of variation relative to the average perceived value ofabstracts and index terms. The graphs plot the “yes” responses to thequestions indicated along the horizontal axis. The five bars above each ofthe questions indicate the percentage of each type of user who respondedpositively to that question. The horizontal black lines across each group offive bars indicate the average response across all types of users as reportedin Figures 6.1 and 6.2.
Responses to the question on the value of abstracts for determining therelevance of a document showed relatively close agreement across typesof users and between databases. Most types of users of both BHA and theAvery Index affirmed the value of abstracts for determining the relevanceof a document with one exception. Independent scholars who use BHA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
306 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
FIGURE 7.1. BHA—Value of Abstracts and Index Terms by Role.
FIGURE 7.2. Avery Index—Value of Abstracts and Index Terms by Role.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Erik Nemeth 307
were markedly less in agreement, and agreement on the part of independentscholars who use the Avery Index was also slightly less than the average.Responses to the other three questions showed variation across types ofusers, with the respondents of the survey of BHA showing less variationthan those of the survey of the Avery Index.
As a group of users, librarians appeared to value abstracts and indexterms most consistently compared to the other groups; they confirmed thevalue at or above the average across all four questions for both databases.Librarians might be the most likely to respond to both surveys and therebyaccount for the matching trends between the two databases, but the differ-ence of the number of librarians in each survey indicates that at least somelibrarians answered only one of the surveys. For both BHA and the AveryIndex, librarians appeared to attribute a greater value to index terms thanusers from the other groups.
Museum professionals and graduate students appeared to respond sim-ilarly across all four questions for both databases. The groups tended toagree relative to the average, albeit differently depending on the database.On the question of the value of abstracts as a source of research, gradu-ate students and museum professionals who use the Avery Index showedgreater appreciation, whereas those who use BHA had less apprecia-tion than the average. The two groups showed the reverse for the ques-tion about index terms as guides to research. As a group, independentscholars appeared to respond opposite to graduate students and museumprofessionals relative to the average response for each question acrossboth databases. The most striking difference was on the question ofusing abstracts as a source of research on the survey of users of theAvery Index.
The undergraduates who responded to the survey of BHA seemed tovalue the metadata more than those who responded to the survey of theAvery Index. As a group, undergraduates seemed to show a greater appreci-ation for abstracts than for index terms for both databases. The observationthat students seemed to use the abstracts a source of research is not sur-prising. Undergraduate users of BHA and graduate students who use theAvery Index seemed to use the abstracts as a source of research. Relativeto the average response in the survey for each database, professors alsofavored abstracts over index terms. The use of abstracts by professors as asource of research in both databases further validates the value and qualityof the abstracts. Similarities between the responses of undergraduates andprofessors suggest a transfer of research practices.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
308 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
Free-Text Responses on Suggestions for Improvementsto the Databases
A question at the end of the survey provided an opportunity for re-spondents to comment on the improvements to the particular database.Responses ranged from a few words to lengthy paragraphs articulatingboth compliments and constructive criticism. After careful review of theresponses, four distinct categories emerged for comments concerning theuser interface of the search page, the scope of coverage, abstracts and indexterms, and access to full text. As shown in Figure 8, users of BHA andthe Avery Index appear to have comments following similar proportionsin the different categories. Comments about the user interfaces of searchpages for both databases were the most prevalent, comments on coveragewere next most common, requests for access to full text of cited documentswere less common, and comments concerning indexing and abstracts weresmallest in number. Figure 9 shows sample responses from each categoryfor each database.
The comments about the user interface indicated that the concernsabout the databases were primarily not about the content. The com-ments about coverage indicated interest for expanding geographic and
FIGURE 8. Suggested Improvements to the Database.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Erik Nemeth 309
FIGURE 9. Suggested Improvements to the Database—Examples.
cross-disciplinary scope but did not seem to question the value of themetadata. The comments about indexing and abstracts tended to showa desire that the application of such metadata be enhanced. Despite themany requests for improvements to the search interfaces, the respondentswere able to appreciate, and complimented, the value of the content of thedatabases, including and specifically referring to the abstracts and indexterms. In sum, the free-text comments reaffirmed the value of existing meta-data and advocated expanding the application of abstracts, index terms, andthesauri. As Web search technologies improve by exploiting context andsemantics, thesauri will take on increasing value because of their potentialto increase both the precision and recall of user-defined searches.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE NEED AND ROLEOF ABSTRACTS AND INDEX TERMS
The free-text responses clearly identify strengths and limitations of theBHA and Avery Index online databases. The users value the content andmetadata but feel that the means for searching the databases could beimproved. The emerging paradigm of searching for scholarly literaturethrough generalized Web search engines has implications for both impres-sions. The expectation of comprehensive discovery of literature will press
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
310 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
for expansion of content and improvement of search capabilities. In prin-ciple, expanded content propagates, if not increases, the need for abstracts,and improved searching may depend on greater precision of indexing. Inpractice, the future role of such expert metadata may expand. Abstractsmay take on a more distributed presence, and index terms may manifestwith increasing transparency. In parallel with redefinition of the applicationof the metadata in searching for scholarly literature on the Web, the linkingof data in the Semantic Web may draw on the knowledge contained inthesauri to create necessary ontologies (Berners-Lee et al., 2006). Throughintegration into the Semantic Web, existing thesauri in the arts may fos-ter cross-disciplinary communication, such as enabling criminologists tocollect data on stolen or looted works of art (Antoniou, 2004).
Access to full text, a greater pool of field-specific literature, and inte-grating knowledge across fields all increase the need for indexing, thesauri,and abstracts. With broadening discovery, precise indexing will increasethe effectiveness of keyword searching. For cases in which searchable fulltext “replaces” indexing, a scholar may benefit from a thesaurus that orga-nizes search terms by increasing precision. Full-text documents from fieldsoutside a user’s own core field of research may prove difficult to searchwithout the assistance of additional metadata. A thesaurus can bridge aknowledge gap by automatically extending search terms with variants—aprocess known as query expansion—that tap into the nomenclature of anoutside field. Even with precision of index terms, searching in full text andacross fields of literature can result in large sets of retrieved documents.With a greater number of documents retrieved for a particular query, theimportance of abstracts to enable efficient determinations will persist andeven increase, and with the rise of interdisciplinarity, the use of abstractsas sources of research will almost certainly increase. As scientists crosstraditional boundaries and librarians and museum professionals take ad-vantage of increased access to a wide range of literature, the number ofusers of literature in art history will inevitably increase. When academicsapproach literature outside of their field of expertise, abstracts may takeon an additional function of bridging knowledge gaps. Akin to serving asa source of research, the abstracts become an educational tool to help ascholar build a knowledge base in a new field.
When considering the future role of metadata from field-specificdatabases, both the metadata per se and the wherewithal to produce themetadata warrant consideration. Accordingly, both the legacy of thesauriand the future creation of abstracts and indexing of records have potentialroles. The abstracts, indexing, and thesauri relating to research databases
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Erik Nemeth 311
such as BHA and the Avery Index represent existing metadata ready forintegration into evolving Web-based search engines for scholarly research.Abstracts are searchable content, and indexing is fundamental to a Websearch engine. By defining the meaning of index terms, a thesaurus cansignificantly facilitate free-text search expressions within a particular fieldof literature and enable cross-disciplinary searching by bridging vocabu-laries from different fields of knowledge. The editorial practices that havedeveloped in creating the metadata over the history of each database re-main important to the efficacy of searching for scholarly literature in theevolving infrastructure of the Web. The challenge lies in transferring theeditorial knowledge base into the infrastructure of information retrieval inorder to enable more efficient production of abstracts and indexing of newrecords.
CONCLUSION: CONTINUED PRODUCTION OF METADATAIN FIELD-SPECIFIC RESEARCH DATABASES
Although users of BHA and the Avery Index support the production ofspecialized metadata, their calls for expanded scope of coverage and ac-cess to full text call into question the feasibility of continuing production offield-specific research databases. Manual methods for creation of abstractsfor documents and for indexing of bibliographic records restrict the degreeof expansion. In order to keep pace with the expectations of discovery andaccess, field-specific research databases must augment traditional produc-tion practices by exploiting efficiencies of the Web. The movements of opencollaboration and open access of Web 2.0 show promise for innovation inproduction of both bibliographic records and specialized metadata.
Open collaboration distributes the task of creating database content fromlocalized production to scholars in the field. Through a Web interface,scholars could create records and accompanying metadata for their ownpublications and for sources that they cite. In such a scenario, the produc-ers of field-specific research databases would need to maintain oversightover externally created metadata to ensure that applied index terms holdthe appropriate meaning for other scholars (Sauperl, 2004). Open accesspromotes ease of linking to information such as documents covered byBHA and the Avery Index. As one example, producers of field-specificresearch databases could leverage existing relationships with publishers tocreate links between bibliographic records and electronic full-text versionsof the associated documents. Distributed production and partnerships with
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
312 JOURNAL OF LIBRARY METADATA
publishers of source documents can greatly expand and enrich databasecontent. In such an environment, the value of the editorial acumen of thedatabase producers would find efficient application by shifting from cre-ation of records to vetting of contributed content. Coupled with automatedmethods such as machine-assisted indexing and techniques of automatedsummarization (Yang & Wang, 2008), practices in Web 2.0 will allowproducers of research databases to continue to produce high-quality, field-specific metadata for authoritative content while expanding the intra- andinterdisciplinary scope of the literature that they cover.
Revising strategies for production will help to integrate the traditionalroles of abstracts and indexing into the evolving infrastructure for re-trieval of literature in scholarly research. The historical value of abstractsand indexing, however, may not be as apparent to future generations ofscholars (Lawlor, 2003), whose contact with metadata may become ab-stracted by the next generation of Web-search technology in the trendtoward electronic publishing. Expansion of relevant scholarly literaturebeyond peer-reviewed publications will increase challenges already inher-ent to comprehensive information retrieval (Bates, 2007). As the roles offield-specific research databases become more transparent, future surveysmight query information scientists to explore the value of abstracts andindexing to systems for discovering authoritative content.
REFERENCES
Antoniou, G. (2004). A semantic Web primer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Bates, M. J. (2007). Indexing and access for digital libraries and the Internet: Human,
database, and domain factors. Journal of the American Society for Information Scienceand Technology, 49(13), 1185–1205.
Berners-Lee, T., Hall, W., Hendler, J. A., O’Hara, K., Shadbolt, N., & Weitzner, D. J.(2006). A framework for Web science. Boston: Now.
Borgman, C. L. (2008). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and theInternet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fundulaki, I., & Polyzotis, N. (2008). CIKM workshop report: Report on the 9th Inter-national Workshop on Web Information and Data Management (WIDM 2007). SIGIRForum, 42(1), 36–43.
Getty Vocabularies. (2008). Contribute to the Getty Vocabularies. Retrieved August 1, 2008,from http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting research/vocabularies/contribute.html.
Gilliland, A. J. (2008). Setting the stage. In M. Baca (Ed.), Introduction to metadata(pp. 1–19), Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute.
Jeanneney, J.-N. (2007). Google and the myth of universal knowledge. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Erik Nemeth 313
Lawlor, B. (2003). Abstracting and information services: Managing the flow of scholarlycommunication—Past, present, and future. Serials Review, 29(3), 200–209.
Miksa, S. D. (2008). You need my metadata: Demonstrating the value of library cataloging.Journal of Library Metadata, 8(1), 23–36.
Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., & Jamali, H. R. (2007). The use, users, and role of abstracts inthe digital scholarly environment. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(4), 446–453.
Rose, T. (2002). Technology’s impact on the information-seeking behavior of art historians.Art Documentation, 21(2), 35–42.
Sauperl, A. (2004). Catalogers’ common ground and shared knowledge. Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(1), 55–63.
Varde, A., & Pei, J. (2008). Report on PIKM 2007: 1st PhD workshop in CIKM—Advancesin information and knowledge management. SIGIR Forum, 42(1), 29–35.
Woodley, M. S. (2008). Crosswalks, metadata harvesting, federated searching, metasearch-ing: Using metadata to connect users and information. In M. Baca (Ed.), Introduction tometadata (pp. 38–62). Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute.
Yang, C. C., & Wang, F. L. (2008). Hierarchical summarization of large documents. Journalof the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 887–902.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
00 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
