Slide 1

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 2

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 3

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 4

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 5

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 6

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 7

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 8

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 9

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 10

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 11

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 12

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 13

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 14

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 15

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 16

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 17

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 18

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 19

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 20

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 21

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 22

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 23

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 24

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 25

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 26

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 27

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 28

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 29

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 30

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 31

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 32

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 33

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 34

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 35

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 36

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 37

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 38

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 39

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 40

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 41

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 42

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 43

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 44

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 45

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 46

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 47

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 48

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 49

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 50

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 51

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 52

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 53

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 54

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55


Slide 55

A Comparative Analysis
Oksana L. Zavalina, Ph.D.
, USA

Presented at IFLA satellite postconference
“Beyond Libraries – Subject Metadata in the
Digital Environment and Semantic Web”
August 18, 2012, Tallinn, Estonia

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

2

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information

O.Zavalina'2012

3

 Metadata

— “structured data about an
object that supports functions associated
with the designated object” (Greenberg,
2005)
• Used in digital libraries to organize information
• Functions supported:
 Find
 Identify
 Select
 Obtain

(IFLA, 1998; 2008)
O.Zavalina'2012

4

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe
• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012

5

Free-text
metadata
draws data
values from the
natural language:
• Estonian capital

Tallinn is located
in Northern
Europe

Controlled-vocabulary
metadata
draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

draws data
values from
formallymaintained
list of terms

• IFLA’s

Classification and
Indexing Section
O.Zavalina'2012
O.Zavalina'2012

6









“Metadata providing a
high-level description of an
aggregation of individual
items” (Macgregor, 2003)
Describes collection as a
whole
Has long been used in
archival community
Is now used in digital
libraries

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL

O.Zavalina'2012

7

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
8
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

Free-text

Controlledvocabulary

Example of collection-level metadata record from NSDL
Example of collection-level metadata record from The European
9
O.Zavalina'2012
Library

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)

O.Zavalina'2012

10

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

11

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:

O.Zavalina'2012

12

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description

O.Zavalina'2012

13

 “information

concerning what the resource is
about and what it is relevant for” (Soergel,
2009)
• crucial for subject access to information objects

and collections in digital libraries
• Dublin Core Collections Application Profile

suggests 5 collection-level subject metadata
elements:
 free-text Description
 controlled-vocabulary Subject, Type [of Object],
Temporal Coverage, Geographic Coverage
O.Zavalina'2012

14

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections

O.Zavalina'2012

15

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them

O.Zavalina'2012

16

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:

O.Zavalina'2012

17

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)

O.Zavalina'2012

18

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use

O.Zavalina'2012

19

Portals that

• bring together hundreds of digital collections
• provide single unique point of entry to them
• (sometimes) provide collection-level metadata to:
 give the user important contextual information for
harvested items (Miller, 2000)
 help narrow search scope to increase precision and
ease of use
 assist in information need clarification (Lee, 2003;
2005)

O.Zavalina'2012

20

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

21

 Most

digital libraries only create
free-text collection-level
metadata
• default in content management

systems (e.g., DSpace)
• saves time of metadata creator


Even when available, controlledvocabulary collection-level
metadata is often NOT displayed to
the end user

Examples of collection-level metadata record display for the same collection
from American Memory and Opening History

O.Zavalina'2012

22

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

O.Zavalina'2012

23

 Fitness

for the purpose of supporting
user tasks:
•
•
•
•

find
identify
select
obtain

 Quality criteria
• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Completeness
• …

O.Zavalina'2012

24

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)

O.Zavalina'2012

25

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy

O.Zavalina'2012

26

 Evaluation

of metadata in digital libraries

• is more and more important to ensure metadata quality
• has not yet become a common practice (Hillmann, 2008)
 Research

evaluating collection-level
metadata is in its infancy
• Zavalina, Palmer, Jackson, and Han (2008)

 Single digital library
• Zavalina (2011)

 compared free-text collection-level subject metadata in 3
large-scale digital libraries

O.Zavalina'2012

27

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

28

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields

O.Zavalina'2012

29

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

O.Zavalina'2012

30

 Comparative

analysis of
collection-level subject metadata
• between free-text (Description) and controlled-

vocabulary (Subject, Object Type, Temporal
Coverage, & Geo. Coverage) metadata fields
 One-way complementarity
 Two-way complementarity
 Redundancy

• across 3 large-scale digital libraries in EU and USA

O.Zavalina'2012

31

O.Zavalina'2012

32

O.Zavalina'2012

33

O.Zavalina'2012

34

↑↑↑

In 22% of records free-text Description
complemented 2+ controlledvocabulary subject metadata fields.

↔

Two-way complementarity occurred in
40% of records
• mostly between Description and Subject

O.Zavalina'2012

35



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)

O.Zavalina'2012

36



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)

O.Zavalina'2012

37



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.

O.Zavalina'2012

38



Description complements
Subject:
• topical information

(“foodways, religious traditions,
Native American culture,
maritime traditions, ethnic folk
culture, material culture”)
• occupational subject

information
(“musicians, craftpersons,
storytellers, folklife
interpreters”)


Description specifies dates in
Temporal Coverage
• “1930 through 2011”.



Description complements
Object Type:
• genre information

(“children’s lore,” “occupational
lore,” “performances,”
“interviews,” “surveys”).
O.Zavalina'2012

39



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).

O.Zavalina'2012

40



Subject lists additional
topics not covered by
Description
• (e.g., “Architecture”).



Geographic Coverage
provides spatial
information absent in
Description
• United States (nation)
• Southern U.S. (general

region)
• Florida (state).
O.Zavalina'2012

41

 “towns

of Coal City,
Braidwood, and
Wilmington” in
Description

 “dance

instruction
manuals, anti-dance
manuals, histories,
treatises on
etiquette” in
Description

↔

↔

 “Illinois

(state),
Grundy (county)”
in Geographic
Coverage

 “Ballroom

O.Zavalina'2012

dancing—United
States” in Subjects

42

 “newspaper

photographs” in
Description

 “contemporary, …

European age of
chivalry, … prior to
1900” in Description

↔

 “photographs;

↔

 “1200-1900” in

archival finding
aids” in Object
Type

O.Zavalina'2012

Temporal
Coverage

43

 Only

in European Library (19%)

 Examples:

Description

Geo. Coverage

Estonia

Estonia

Ljubljana

Ljubljana

Netherlands

Netherlands

Description Temp. Coverage
1763

1763
Description

Subject

photographs photographs

O.Zavalina'2012

44

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

O.Zavalina'2012

45

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

O.Zavalina'2012

46

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

O.Zavalina'2012

47

 High

complementarity & little redundancy in
collection-level subject metadata

 More

detailed collection-level metadata
records
• include BOTH free-text and controlled-

vocabulary subject metadata

 mutually complementary

• allow more fully representing intellectual

content of information objects

• ultimately improve subject

access for the users.

O.Zavalina'2012

48

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available

O.Zavalina'2012

49

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

O.Zavalina'2012

50

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

O.Zavalina'2012

51

Guidelines for creating high-quality
collection-level subject metadata
• are not currently available
• can be incorporated in
 National standards
 Framework of Guidance for Building
Good Digital Collections (US NISO)

 International standards
 Guidelines for Digital Libraries (IFLA).

• Require more extensive analysis of collection-level

subject metadata in a variety of digital libraries

 with different subject focus & scale
 built in various countries
O.Zavalina'2012

52

Aitäh

[email protected]
O.Zavalina'2012

53














Greenberg, J. (2005). Metadata and the World Wide Web. In Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science, pp. 1876-1888. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hillmann, D.I. (2008). Metadata quality: from evaluation to augmentation. Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, 46(1), 65-80.
Lee, H. (2003). Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization.
Library & Information Science Research, 25(4), 419-436.
Lee, H. (2005). The concept of collection from the user’s perspective. Library Quarterly,
75(1), 67-85.
Macgregor, G. (2003). Collection-level descriptions: metadata of the future? Library
Review, 52(6), 247-250.
Miller P. (2000). Collected wisdom: some cross-domain issues of collection-level
description. D-Lib Magazine, 6 (Sept.)
Soergel, D. (2009). Digital libraries and knowledge organization. In S.R. Kruk & B.
McDaniel (Eds.), Semantic Digital Libraries, (pp. 9-39). Berlin: Springer.
Zavalina, O.L., Palmer, C.L., Jackson, A.S., & Han, M.-J. (2008). Evaluating descriptive
richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zavalina, O.L. (2011). Free-text collection-level subject metadata in large-scale digital
libraries: a comparative content analysis. In T. Baker, D.I. Hillmann & A. Isaac (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications,
(pp. 147-157). The Hague: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
54
O.Zavalina'2012

 The

European Library

• Sally Chambers
 American

Memory

• Christa Maher
 Opening

History

• IMLS-funded Digital Collections and Content

project team
O.Zavalina'2012

55