Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The powerpoint of my presentation
Citation preview
Recommendations for Geospatial Metadata Standards
for Digital Collections
Introduction
• Hello, I’m Dorotea Szkolar!– M.L.I.S. Candidate at Syracuse
University.– Specializing in Digital Libraries.– Professional background in museums
and research.– Internship focus on geo-spatial
metadata interoperability.
Purpose
• Introduce Geospatial Metadata– Importance/GIS Technology/ Map
Interfaces– Benefit to MWDL and Its Partners
• Overview Analysis– Highlight Specific Interoperability Issues
• Overview Recommendations– Short Term– Long Term
• So What? Who Cares About Geospatial Metadata!? – Maps are lame and
old news! – What does it matter
having standards for spatial metadata?
– Why make it the focus of my internship?
So What?
Geospatial Revolution
• Geospatial Information and Map Interfaces are the next big things! – Geospatial Revolution. – Maps visualize information
and patterns in ways text cannot achieve.
– Several Digital Libraries achieving exciting results on this forefront.
– Great opportunities for collaboration and advancement.
Example
• The World Digital Library– Sleek Map Interface to Showcase Digital
Collections of Partners From Around the World
– http://www.wdl.org/en/• Map of State of the Internet
– http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/
• Tweets of the words “beer” and “church” by U.S. county– http://
io9.com/5923723/tweets-of-the-words-beer-and-church-by-us-county
Other Examples
• MWDL could visualize partners collections and information in new exciting ways.
• But in order to achieve that, need to resolve geo-spatial metadata interoperability issues!
Table 1
Coll. No.
Digital Collection Partner No. of Records in Collection
CONTENTdm Geospatial Field(s) -- Label(s)
No. of Distinct Values for Spatial Field
1 American Westward Migration
University of Utah - J. Willard Marriott Library
62 Latitude; Place Names 37
2 Barry Maxfield Railroad Photographs
Utah Valley University Library
252 Coverage-Spatial 64
3 Bear River Watershed Historical Collection
Utah State University - Merrill-Cazier Library
772 Location; Geographic data 85
4 Civilian Conservation Corps in Utah
Utah State Historical Society
1455 Geopolitical place 92
5 Design Workshop Landscape Architecture Archive
Utah State University - Merrill-Cazier Library
303 Geographic Location
4
• Collections which map to the spatial refinement of coverage: 50
• Total Collection Records: 103,971
• Avg. No. of Distinct Values for Spatial Field: 52.6
• Almost all the collections contained spatial terms involving state, county, populated place and feature
Table 2
• 50 out of 297 collections map to the spatial refinement of coverage.
• 170 out of the 297 (not including collections mapping to coverage spatial refinement), contain spatial term or reference in the subject or coverage field.
Collection Partner Subject Coverage Spatial Coverage
Adams, R. D.
Southern Utah University - Sherratt Library
Yes No No
Albert Tissandier Collection
University of Utah - Utah Museum of Fine Arts
No No No
Alta (UT) Avalanche Study Center
University of Utah - J. Willard Marriott Library
No Yes Yes
American Travelers in Italy
Brigham Young University - Harold B. Lee Library
Yes No No
Analysis Highlights
• Total of 50 collections use spatial refinement of Dublin core (dcterms:spatial).
• On average 53 distinct values or terms utilized in each collection = wide variation.
• 2/3 of collections contain spatial information somewhere in metadata = starting point to improve.
Map Interface Examples and
Issues• Inconsistent formatting and vocabularies resulted in: – Semantic based errors– Interoperability issues– Display difficulties in
map initiatives.– Skewed map density or
items not properly displaying on the map.
• Country: Britain Vs. England Vs. United Kingdom
• State: Utah County Vs. Utah State
• City: Salt Lake City Vs. Salt Lake County
Summary of Issues and Missed
Opportunities
• Reduced success of search.• Interoperability issues worsen as
additional geographic regions are incorporated.
• Map initiative display difficulties.• Collaboration difficulties- DPLA• Historic Names vs. Current Political
Name
Recommendations-Short Tern
• Mandate partners utilize spatial coverage refinement in future collections harvested by MWDL.
• Complete global search and replace of simple geospatial metadata with properly formatted spatial metadata in current collections.
• Hire a programmer to write scripts to automatically make assumptions when harvesting metadata.
Recommendations-Long Term
• Select and enforce one standard for formatting and select controlled vocabularies (see report for candidates).
• Ensure standards adopted are compliant ISO 19115.
• Collaborate and experiment with interactive map interfaces and geospatial technologies.
Recommendations-Long Tern
• Require partners to set timeline and make reformatting of spatial metadata part of long term institutional plan.
• Fundraise and establish funds for support.– Allow partners to hire someone to reformat
metadata in a timely manner.– Hiring additional staff for MWDL to assist with
map interfaces and spatial based initiatives.– Build proper metadata infrastructure.
Questions welcome!
• Sandra McIntyreProgram DirectorMountain West Digital [email protected]
• Dorotea Szkolar 2012 Mountain West Digital Library Intern Email: [email protected] Twitter: @doroteaszkolar LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/doroteaszkolar
