Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Miami University Libraries]On: 18 October 2014, At: 08:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Library MetadataPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjlm20
Metadata in ARL Libraries: A Survey ofMetadata PracticesJin Ma aa Newman Library, Baruch College , The City University of New York ,New York, USAPublished online: 18 Aug 2009.
To cite this article: Jin Ma (2009) Metadata in ARL Libraries: A Survey of Metadata Practices, Journalof Library Metadata, 9:1-2, 1-14, DOI: 10.1080/19386380903094977
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19386380903094977
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed 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 the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Library Metadata, 9:1–14, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1938-6389 print / 1937-5034 onlineDOI: 10.1080/19386380903094977
Metadata in ARL Libraries:A Survey of Metadata Practices
JIN MANewman Library, Baruch College, The City University of New York,
New York, USA
This study assesses the current metadata practices and trends inAssociation of Research Libraries (ARL) libraries, based on the sur-vey Metadata conducted in spring 2007 (SPEC Kit 298: Metadata),a collaborative effort with the staff at the ARL. The survey inves-tigates how metadata has been implemented in ARL member li-braries: what kinds of projects or initiatives have been undertaken,what types of digital objects are associated with metadata, who arecreating metadata, what schemas and tools are used to create andmanage metadata, and the organizational changes and challengesresulting from the adoption of metadata in the libraries.
The author summarizes her observations of the findings andthe main themes that emerged from the metadata practices in li-braries. She assesses the changing context of metadata creationand management and the evolution of metadata workflow andbest practices in libraries. The author also discusses the roles andresponsibilities of metadata professionals and the implications ofmetadata practices for the library and information community.
KEYWORDS metadata, cataloging, metadata professionals, meta-data practices
INTRODUCTION
Metadata is often called “data about data.” It has been used by variouscommunities for geospatial data, social and scientific datasets, enterpriseapplications, data warehouses, and so on. The library community has a longhistory of creating catalog records and MARC metadata for traditional librarymaterials and has been creating metadata for electronic resources and digital
Address correspondence to Jin Ma, Newman Library, Baruch College, The City Universityof New York, One Bernard Baruch Way, Box H-0520, New York, NY 10010-5585. E-mail:[email protected]
1
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mia
mi U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:33
18
Oct
ober
201
4
2 J. Ma
objects during the last decades. A wide range of emerging metadata standardshas been used to describe, identify, and manage digital resources of differentformats. Consequently, digital content management systems and applicationsthat aid in the creation and management of metadata have been used inthe libraries along with the integrated library system (ILS). Many librarieshire a “metadata librarian” who plays a key role in coordinating metadataactivities inside and outside the organization. Some institutions have gonethrough further organizational transformations in response to the challengesand opportunities of metadata management. The topic of metadata is of greatimportance to libraries and librarianship at present. How libraries managetheir metadata and metadata resources may have a great impact on theirexistence in the information age.
The goal of this study is to investigate the current state of metadataimplementation in Association of Research Libraries (ARL) libraries, identifycommon themes and trends in metadata practices, and discuss metadataimplications for the libraries and the librarians. The study is derived from thefollowing research questions:
1. What is the current state of metadata implementation regarding metadatainitiatives and projects, standards, tools, and software in practice?
2. What organizational transformations have libraries gone through in re-sponse to metadata demand?
3. What are metadata implications for the libraries and librarians in the 21stcentury?
LITERATURE REVIEW
A comprehensive survey of metadata literature is well beyond the scopeof this article, but some emerging trends in current literature are worthnoting: metadata workflow and management; and metadata or catalogingprofessionals’ responsibilities, roles, skills, and competencies.
The issue of the management of metadata is becoming a major priorityfor academic institutions and organizations as metadata have been generatedat large scales with various standards. Coupled with this are issues relatedto metadata workflow. Fleming, Mering, and Wolfe (2008) reported that thecreation of non-MARC metadata has been dispersed throughout departmentswithin the libraries by surveying ARL libraries and some other academiclibraries. The authors made recommendations about how to document de-cisions relating to metadata and how to coordinate metadata creation andrecommended that library professionals maintain a role of leadership in thecreation and adherence of metadata standards. Pennsylvania State Univer-sity employs a project management approach involving a wide range ofspecialties in the membership of their Digital Project Managers Plus Group
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mia
mi U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:33
18
Oct
ober
201
4
Metadata in ARL Libraries 3
(Ma, 2006). The steps to managing metadata for digital projects includeanalyzing metadata requirements, adoption of metadata schema, creationof metadata content, delivery of metadata and digital objects, evaluationof metadata, and sustaining of metadata maintenance. Kurth, Ruddy, andRupp (2004) discussed what metadata management means by mapping,transforming, and managing existing MARC records in the context of dig-ital libraries at Cornel University. Westbrooks (2005) further suggested that“metadata management is the sum of activities designed to create, preserve,describe, maintain access, and manipulate metadata, MARC and otherwise,that may be owned, aggregated, or distributed by the managing institution.”Metadata management implies continued maintenance over the life cycleof digital objects as reflected in an operational model for library meta-data maintenance developed by LeBlanc and Kurth (2008). The authorsdemonstrated that the expertise and skills that have long been the hall-mark for the maintenance of libraries’ catalog data can and should be par-layed toward metadata maintenance in a broader set of information deliverysystems.
When non-MARC metadata was first introduced to the library commu-nity, cataloging departments and technical services were the pioneers un-dertaking metadata responsibilities. Fietzer (1998) discussed how technicalservices librarians should fit in the new frontier of metadata. Ahronheimand Marko (2000) also defined new roles for cataloging departments as theystep out of the MARC box and incorporate non-MARC metadata. Hall-Ellis(2006) discovered employer expectations of recent library school graduatesby analyzing entry-level cataloger positions and found that employers expectentry-level catalogers to be familiar with several metadata schemas. Chapman(2007) identified four roles of the metadata librarian in a research library ascollaboration, research, education, and development. Calhoun (2007) fore-cast “the changing roles of librarians—especially catalogers and metadataspecialists—in today’s technology-driven research, teaching, and learningenvironments, in which information seekers behave more and more self-sufficiently and move well beyond library collections in their pursuit ofinformation.” Applying multivariate techniques of cluster and multidimen-sional scaling (MDS) to content analysis of 107 job descriptions, Park andLu (2009) demonstrated that knowledge and skills related to metadata cre-ation, electronic resources management, awareness of trends, and digitallibrary management are in critical demand for metadata professionals. In an-other similar study, Park, Lu, and Marion (2009) found that the advancementof technology has affected every aspect of the cataloging profession andthat the emerging knowledge and skill sets related to electronic resourcesmanagement, metadata creation, and computer and Web applications areincreasingly being integrated into the knowledge and skills of traditionalcataloging practices. Their findings also indicated that management of cata-loging functions is also in high demand.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mia
mi U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:33
18
Oct
ober
201
4
4 J. Ma
METHODOLOGY
The survey was designed to investigate the current state of metadata imple-mentation. The final online survey consisted of 21 questions covering manyaspects of metadata practices: metadata projects and practices, standards,software, tools, workflow, organizational changes, and staffing issues.
This survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in February2007. In addition to supplying answers to the survey questions, the respon-dents were asked to submit representative documents in the form of missionstatements, organizational charts, job descriptions, and policies. Sixty-eightof the 123 ARL member libraries responded to the survey with a return rateof 55%. All respondents but one (99%) reported having engaged in metadataactivities for digital objects at their institutions.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In the following subsections, findings and discussion are presented in threeareas: (a) an overview of metadata initiatives, standards, and tools; (b) orga-nizational and personnel transformations; and (c) metadata implications forthe library and information community as reflected in survey responses andcomments.
Part 1: An Overview of Metadata Initiatives, Standards, and Tools
THE CHRONOLOGY OF METADATA CREATION
As Figure 1 shows, one respondent started creating metadata as early as 1989and 5 followed in the consequent 5 years. The first sharp increase occurred
FIGURE 1 Timeline of metadata creation.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mia
mi U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:33
18
Oct
ober
201
4
Metadata in ARL Libraries 5
in 1995 and 1996, when 11 additional libraries began metadata activities.This increase coincided with the creation of Dublin Core metadata standardat an invitational workshop held at Dublin, Ohio, in March 1995. Thirtymore libraries began creating metadata between 1998 and 2001. The activityreached its peak at the turn of the millennium, with 10 libraries enteringthe metadata arena in 2000. After another peak in 2003 with 9 start-ups, theprogress slowed, with 3 in 2004, only 1 in 2005, none in 2006, and 1 in 2007(Ma, 2007).
METADATA PROJECTS AND INITIATIVES
The primary factor causing the popularity of metadata was member li-braries’ involvement in digitization projects (66 or 99%). However, as re-spondents commented, metadata is more broadly defined than just to dig-itization projects. A variety of other digital initiatives promotes the use ofmetadata: institutional repositories (36 or 54%), Web content management(28 or 42%), datasets (23 or 34%), subject-based repositories (18 or 27%),learning objects and educational repositories (16 or 24%), metadata registry(15 or 22%), digital media lab (14 or 15%), EAD finding aids, and onlinejournal publishing.
Consequently, metadata has been created to describe and provide accessto a wide variety of resources, including images (67 or 100%), text (64 or96%), collections (59 or 88%), audio (45 or 67%), maps (42 or 63%), video(34 or 51%), datasets (25 or 37%), EAD finding aids, theses, and web pages.
METADATA STANDARDS
Figure 2 lists the types of metadata standards used by the responding li-braries: MARC (61 or 91%), EAD (56 or 84%), Dublin Core (52 or 78%),Qualified Dublin Core (45 or 67%), TEI Header (37 or 55%), MODS (28or 42%), VRA Core Categories (24 or 36%), and FGDC (10 or 15%). A few
FIGURE 2 Metadata standards.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mia
mi U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:33
18
Oct
ober
201
4
6 J. Ma
respondents reported using LOM, CDWA, MPEG Multimedia Metadata, ICPSRDDI, ONIX, GILS, and IMS Learning Resource Metadata Specification. Somerespondents commented that local or “homegrown” metadata standards havebeen developed.
Survey respondents reported various controlled vocabularies applied tometadata including thesauri, indexes, subject headings, authority files, andterms. More than half of the responding libraries use LCSH (63 or 96%),Library of Congress (LC) Name Authority File (58 or 88%), and Art and Ar-chitecture Thesaurus (42 or 64%). Others include LC Thesaurus for GraphicalMaterials I (31 or 47%) and II (27 or 41%), Getty Thesaurus of GeographicNames (24 or 36%), Getty Union List of Artist Names (20 or 30%), MeSH (18or 27%), and Geographic Names Information Service (16 or 24%).
METADATA SOFTWARE AND TOOLS
A wide range of tools and software is summarized by categories inTable 1. DSpace (31 or 48%) and CONTENTdm (28 or 43%) are by farthe most frequently used digital content management systems.
The survey indicated that various attempts have been made to facilitatemetadata interoperability. Fifty-three (83%) respondents indicate that theyhave adopted the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvest-ing (OAI-PMH). Forty-seven (73%) libraries use metadata crosswalk. Otheradvanced methods and standards have been used to promote metadata inter-operability and management including METS (29 or 45%), RDF (16 or 25%),metadata registries (14 or 22%), and application profiles (13 or 20%).
TABLE 1 Metadata Software and Tools
Software/tools Examples
Text editors NoteTab, NoteTab Pro, UltraEdit, BB EditXML editing, authoring and
validation toolsXML Spy, XMetal, Stylus Studio, Oxygen
Databases Oracle, FileMaker Pro, MySQL, AccessILS Innovative Interfaces MetaData Builder, Endeavor’s
EncompassDigital content management
systemsCONTENTdm, DSpace, Fedora, DLXS, Luna Insight,
Greenstone, Digital Commons, EPrints, ESRI Art Suite,DigiTool, Documentum, Olive, DpubS (Digital PublishingSystem), StreetPrint
Scripting PURLMicrosoft tools Word, Excel, AccessMARC tools MARCEdit, MARC Report, OCLC ConnexionLocally developed tools EAD template generator, JETL, JHOVE, workflow
management tool, ingest tools, custom-developed toolsfor MODS creation, local ColdFusion system
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mia
mi U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:33
18
Oct
ober
201
4
Metadata in ARL Libraries 7
The survey data reflects the diversification of metadata initiatives, stan-dards, and tools in the responding libraries. Seventeen (25%) institutionsare involved in more than five different types of metadata initiatives includ-ing digitization projects, institutional repositories, datasets, and Web con-tent management, and so on. Nineteen (28%) institutions have used morethan seven different types of metadata standards. Seventeen (25%) insti-tutions have used more than seven types of controlled vocabularies. Onerespondent uses a dozen of metadata creation and editing tools, while an-other institute has an array of 10 digital content management systems inplace.
The proliferation of emerging metadata standards, tools, and softwarecalls for metadata interoperability, which is among the top challenges thatlibraries face. The libraries’ involvement in OAI-PMH, metadata crosswalks,metadata registries, and application profiles indicates the shift from discov-ering standards and tools to integrating systems and building infrastructure.The open-ended comments also gave a strong indication of the importanceof interoperability. The survey respondents expressed concerns such as thelack of “system-wide infrastructure,” the difficulty of “interoperating exist-ing online collections with new ones on new platforms,” and “the cost anddifficulty of creating consistent metadata across multiple formats and imple-mentation systems.” The author supports LeBlanc and Kurth’s model (2008)and recommends that metadata be managed in the life cycle of the digitalobjects and that applications adhere to standards and application profiles forinteroperability.
Part 2: Organizational and Personnel Transformations
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES
Of 65 responding institutions, 55 (85%) reported organizational changes inresponse to the demands of metadata services while 10 (15%) reported no or-ganizational changes. Existing positions were redefined to incorporate meta-data responsibilities at 36 libraries. Twenty-six institutions created at leastone new metadata librarian position. Seven separate new metadata servicesunits were created. Thirteen respondents incorporated metadata servicesinto existing departments and renamed them (e.g., “Cataloging Services” to“Cataloging and Metadata Services”). A larger number of respondents (21) in-corporated metadata services into existing departments without making anyname changes. A few libraries are in the planning stages of reorganizing.
METADATA STAFFING
The respondents were asked the number of full-time and part-time posi-tions and total Full-time equivalents (FTEs) for 10 different categories of staff
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mia
mi U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:33
18
Oct
ober
201
4
8 J. Ma
TABLE 2 Full-Time Metadata Staff
Number of TotalPosition respondents number Min. Max. Mean Median
Metadata librarian 26 38 1 4 1.46 1.00Cataloger 20 72 1 15 3.60 2.50Support staff 17 72 1 17 3.77 2.00Programmer 12 20 1 5 1.67 1.00Archivist 10 23 1 10 2.30 1.00Database librarian/specialist 9 23 1 14 2.56 1.00Subject librarian/specialist 9 43 1 24 4.78 1.00Preservation librarian/specialist 5 6 1 2 1.20 1.00Student workers 5 23 2 10 4.60 3.00Other staff 12 29 1 10 2.42 1.50Total 349
who contribute to metadata-related services. Not surprisingly, the majorityof responding libraries relies on a wide variety of staff to cover metadataoperations, as shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4. Twenty-six respondents reporteda total of 38 full-time metadata librarians, with a maximum of 4. Thirteen re-spondents reported having 1 or 2 part-time metadata librarians. The averagenumber of FTE metadata librarians is 1.21 among 37 responding libraries(Table 4). A total number of 72 full-time catalogers were reported by 20respondents; and 72 full-time support staff were reported by 17 respond-ing libraries. For the part-time positions, the number of student workers is149 reported by 25 libraries, while 122 catalogers by 28 respondents wasreported. From Tables 2, 3, and 4, there are significantly more individualsinvolved on a part-time basis (a total of 583 reported) than full-time (349individuals). These 932 individuals spend the equivalent to 521 FTEs onmetadata activities.
TABLE 3 Part-Time Metadata Staff
Number of TotalPosition respondents number Min. Max. Mean Median
Cataloger 28 122 1 30 4.36 1.50Archivist 26 45 1 6 1.73 1.00Student workers 25 149 1 27 5.96 4.00Support staff 23 95 1 24 4.13 3.00Metadata librarian 13 15 1 2 1.15 1.00Subject librarian/specialist 12 65 1 40 5.42 3.00Programmer 12 28 1 9 2.33 1.50Database librarian/specialist 8 10 1 2 1.25 1.00Preservation librarian/
specialist4 21 1 18 5.25 1.00
Other staff 9 33 1 8 3.67 3.00Total 583
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mia
mi U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:33
18
Oct
ober
201
4
Metadata in ARL Libraries 9
TABLE 4 Total FTE of Metadata Staff
Number of TotalPosition respondents number Min. Max. Mean Median
Cataloger 44 109.2 .10 19.00 2.48 1.00Metadata librarian 37 44.85 .05 4.00 1.21 1.00Support staff 33 101.5 .05 17.00 2.93 1.00Archivist 34 36.00 .10 10.00 1.09 0.50Student workers 30 73.15 .10 10.00 2.44 1.50Programmer 21 27.73 .10 2.75 1.32 1.00Subject librarian/specialist 20 52.58 .10 30.00 2.63 0.88Database librarian/specialist 15 25.21 .25 14.00 1.70 1.00Preservation librarian/specialist 8 9.40 .05 4.00 1.18 1.00Other staff 19 41.60 .10 10.00 2.19 1.35Total 521
METADATA LIBRARIAN QUALIFICATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Forty-eight responding libraries have at least one metadata librarian position.The job description requires an MLS degree at 42 respondents. Knowledgeof emerging metadata standards and experience with MARC cataloging arerequired by most libraries. Soft skills such as communication skills, problem-solving skills, and the ability to work cooperatively and independently arealso required by over 70% respondents. About one-third of the respondinglibraries require advanced knowledge of metadata crosswalks, interoper-ability, and experience with ILS. Experience with intuitional repositoriesand digital content management systems and knowledge of XML and OAIare listed as desirable qualifications by about half of the respondents. Thesurvey indicates that at most responding institutions, the metadata librarianplays a leadership role in metadata activities while performing the followingfunctions: consulting on metadata options in terms of metadata standards;working with systems personnel, subject specialists, project partners, andeven end users on metadata-related issues; documenting metadata policies,procedures, and guidelines; and training staff.
In summary, as libraries are more and more involved in metadata activ-ities, moving from project-based metadata creation to large-scale metadataproduction, most of them have gone through organizational changes to meetthe metadata demands as indicated in the survey results. Some have creatednew positions and new metadata units, some have redefined current po-sitions to include metadata duties, some have renamed the division nameto reflect the metadata responsibilities, and others have built cross-functionteams. The creation and maintenance of metadata have been distributedamong different departments within the library, and even outside the library.Cataloging departments and technical services are not the only divisions thatcreate and maintain metadata; many other divisions and stakeholders arealso involved, including special collections, archives, digital initiatives, and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mia
mi U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:33
18
Oct
ober
201
4
10 J. Ma
content owners. The wide range of personnel involved in metadata activitiesas shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4 further supports the findings by Fleming,Mering, and Wolfe (2008) that the creation of metadata has been dispersedthroughout departments within the library.
Technical and political challenges are inevitable when changes areintroduced. Respondents commented on the challenges of “creating theright internal organization for providing metadata services,” of “develop-ing/accommodating workflow for metadata creation,” and of “managingprojects that across so many departments/divisions of the libraries and that in-volve other units across campus” due to the decentralized metadata activitiesand the complexity of metadata production. The author argues that changingdepartment names and position titles by incorporating “metadata” might bethe first step to change the organizational culture. Nurturing metadata culturepaves the path for developing strategies and policies, streamlining metadataproduction, and implementing appropriate workflow.
As reported in the section “Metadata Librarian Qualifications and Re-sponsibilities,” it is quite easy to identify common roles as shown in themetadata librarian’s job description and the survey responses. The survey re-sults supported Chapman’s (2007) findings of the roles of a metadata librarianin a research library as collaboration, research, education, and development.That is, collaborating with parties who share a common goal, researchingthe new developments in the field, educating library staff and a wider au-dience on metadata, and exploring options and creation of new or revisedapproaches. In addition, the author recommends that “leadership” role bestressed, as 19 libraries reported that metadata librarian has the primaryresponsibility for the management and coordination of metadata activities.With the creation and maintenance of metadata distributed among differentdepartments within the library, the university, and the broader community,it becomes imperative to have a leader who oversees the metadata activitiesand standards, identifies metadata relationships and processes, and promotesthe sharing and reuse of metadata resources.
Metadata librarians need to master a set of skills and qualifications thatallow them to fulfill the above roles as discovered in the survey. Eventhough cataloging background and skills are very desirable, informationtechnology competency has drawn much attention. Responding librariesask or prefer that the metadata librarian know XML and XSLT, relationaldatabase knowledge, programming knowledge, even Perl scripting. In addi-tion to the MLS degree and knowledge of emerging metadata standards, otherhighly desirable qualifications are the ability to work in a team environment;excellent interpersonal, oral, and written communication skills; and excel-lent analytical and problem-solving skills. A metadata librarian is someonewho can cross all lines and move around the structure of the organization,someone who is able to make sure that people communicate with eachother.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mia
mi U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:33
18
Oct
ober
201
4
Metadata in ARL Libraries 11
By the time the survey was conducted, 26 libraries reported havingcreated a new “metadata librarian” position, with 16 positions having “meta-data” in the title, 3 with “cataloger” in the title, and 7 with digital initiativeslibrarian. Thus, the “metadata librarian” in this context is a more inclusiveterm, mainly referring to the person who has the major responsibility formetadata in the organization, whether it is a full-fledged metadata librarianposition, or electronic resources cataloger/cataloging librarian who handlesthe non-MARC metadata creation, or newly created digital initiatives/contentlibrarian who usually is a member of digital initiatives unit and covers meta-data responsibilities as well as project planning, scanning, and other digitalactivities.
When Chapman (2007) discussed the roles of the metadata librarians,he referred to those metadata librarians within a traditional cataloging ortechnical services department, which he termed “technical services model.”Even though the metadata librarian in this survey is broader than his defini-tion indicated above, more than 80% of respondents have placed a metadatalibrarian in cataloging departments or technical services. In addition to these19 libraries that identify the metadata librarian has the primary responsibil-ity, other 19 libraries reported “other librarian” has primary responsibilityfor metadata management. Ninety percent of them identify “other librarian”as head of cataloging or technical services. This is a strong indicator of theimportant role that cataloging and technical services play in the metadatauniverse. The author supports the “technical services model” and recom-mends that the metadata librarian remain in the cataloging and technicalservices. Metadata work is an excellent opportunity to employ catalogingand technical services librarians’ experiences and expertise while their rolesare more consultative and advisory than ever.
Part 3: Metadata Implications for the Libraryand Information Community
For about half a century, libraries have been playing an important role inproviding access to information resources through their Online Public AccessCatalogs (OPACs), of which MARC records are the cornerstone. With theadvent of the World Wide Web and Internet search engines, users are able tobypass the mediated search and access information directly. Library catalogsare perceived as dull and dated legacy systems. Metadata poses challengesto the current practice of library cataloging; however, it provides ampleopportunities for the library staff to work across lines, for libraries to presentlibrary collections and digital sources beyond traditional models, and forlibrarians to get involved in a much broader scholarly community.
Since the North Carolina State University’s early move to the next-generation library catalog, many other libraries and vendors have been
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mia
mi U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:33
18
Oct
ober
201
4
12 J. Ma
developing new types of information discovery systems with sophisticatedfeatures and functionalities. Of these experiments and applications, an impor-tant component is the strategy based on metadata—metadata from multiplesources including ILS, digital repositories, and licensed databases; metadatathat include user-generated content resulting from user tagging, submissionof reviews; metadata that function effectively within the new Web environ-ments; and metadata that are extensible to facilitate future enhancementsand updates (Bowen, 2008).
Metadata librarians and specialists should help build new kinds of accesssystems including the next-generation catalog, as Calhoun (2007) suggestedin her article “Being a Librarian: Metadata and Metadata Specialists in theTwenty-First Century.” She encourages that libraries position themselves onthe online information market while examining the larger context of theglobal infosphere, information-seeking behavior, and changing roles for li-brary collections and information systems.
The author suggests that libraries and librarians seek an active role in theinformation universe of the 21st century. While users are enjoying the easeof using Internet search engines, most of them are not touching the richercontent hidden in the Deep Web. Library catalogs and resources are animportant component of that Deep Web that general search engines cannotgrasp. With the development of RDF as a vehicle to express the semanticsof the Web, the importance of metadata has also evolved to include thedomain of the Semantic Web. While this survey found that 16 respondentshave used RDF without being able to gain further information, it would beencouraging to anticipate any roles or contributions that the libraries mayassume or make to the development of the Semantic Web.
CONCLUSION
This study evidently shows that libraries have stepped out of the MARC boxand entered the world of metadata. With the evolving information environ-ment and changing user needs, libraries are actively supporting institutionalrepositories, digital collections, online publishing, Web content management,and other information management endeavors, of which metadata plays akey role in describing, accessing, and managing information objects of dif-ferent formats and media. The metadata generation is no longer confined totraditional information organization divisions in the library but is distributedthroughout the organization. As the size of digital objects has increasedwith the advancement of information technologies, so has the need andimportance to describe them at different stages of their life cycles. Meta-data interoperability is, of essence, to facilitate the exchange and sharing ofinformation and to enable cross-domain searching. Libraries and librarians
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mia
mi U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:33
18
Oct
ober
201
4
Metadata in ARL Libraries 13
play a more proactive role in the knowledge management community andscholarly communication in the 21st century.
There are limitations to the findings of this study. Only ARL librarieswere surveyed, many of which are large, academic research libraries. Thefindings of the study may reflect a more inclusive overview of metadataimplementation by including other types of libraries and small or medium-size libraries as well. Another limitation of the study stems from the fact thatthe survey was designed to get an overview of many aspects of metadataimplementation in the libraries with a broad range of questions. While thestudy provides a big picture of the metadata universe and helps identifymain themes that emerged from metadata practices in the libraries, it maylack depth in exploring specific issues. These limitations of the study createground for further studies in specific areas.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to acknowledge the support from Lee Anne George,Series Editor of SPEC Kit, Association of Research Libraries, and other ARLstaff who made the study possible.
REFERENCES
Ahronheim, J., & Marko, L. (2000). Exploding out of the MARC box: Building newroles for cataloging departments. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 20(2/3),217–225.
Bowen, J. (2008). Metadata to support next-generation library resource discovery:Lessons from the eXtensible Catalog, Phase 1. Information Technology andLibraries, 27(2), 6–19.
Calhoun, K. (2007). Being a librarian: Metadata and metadata specialists in thetwenty-first century. Library Hi Tech, 25(2), 174–187.
Chapman, J. W. (2007). The roles of the metadata librarian in a research library.Library Resources & Technical Services, 51(4), 279–285.
Fietzer, W. (1998). Technical services librarians and metadata: Reigning in the newfrontier. Technicalities, 18(7), 7–10.
Fleming, A., Mering, M., & Wolfe, J. A. (2008). Library personnel’s role in the creationof metadata: A survey of academic libraries. Technical Services Quarterly, 25(4),1–15.
Hall-Ellis, S. D. (2006). Cataloging electronic resources and metadata: Employers’ ex-pectations as reflected in American Libraries and AutoCAT, 2000–2005. Journalof Education for Library and Information Science, 47(1), 38–51.
Kurth, M., Ruddy, D., & Rupp, N. (2004). Repurposing MARC metadata: Using digitalproject experience to develop a metadata management design. Library Hi Tech,20(2), 153–165.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mia
mi U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:33
18
Oct
ober
201
4
14 J. Ma
LeBlanc, J., & Kurth, M. (2008). An operational model for library metadata mainte-nance. Library Resources & Technical Services, 52(1), 54–59.
Ma, J. (2006). Managing metadata for digital projects. Library Collections, Acquisi-tions, & Technical Services, 30(1/2), 3–17.
Ma, J. (2007). Metadata. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.Park, J., & Lu, C. (2009). Metadata professionals: Roles and competencies as reflected
in job announcements, 2003–2006. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47(2),145–160.
Park, J., Lu, C., & Marion, L. (2009). Cataloging professionals in the digital environ-ment: A content analysis of job descriptions. Journal of the American Society forInformation Science and Technology, 60(4), 844–857.
Westbrooks, E. L. (2005). Remarks on metadata management. OCLC Systems & Ser-vices: International Digital Library Perspectives, 21(1), 5–7.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mia
mi U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:33
18
Oct
ober
201
4
