Metadata Encoding Transmission Standard Overview

Meta info encoding Transmission measure Over fitElizabeth RogersMetadata encryption Transmission cadence HistoryThe origins of the Metadata Encoding Transmission exemplar, or METS, tail end be traced game to a 1996 attempt by The University of California Berkley to address the institutions in world power to rebind pages of a book once they had been digitized. The program take a leakd by UC Berkley, called Ebind, was not successful. However, it coat the way for an another(prenominal) attempt at solving this problem, the Making of the States II Project. This project, st nontextual mattered in 1998, was taken on by several U.S. universities, including UC Berkley (McDonough, 2005). composition MOA2 was a step in the right direction towards the organization of digital objects, it was discovered that MOA2 had limited ability to fulfill this role. In 2001, a collection of libraries working on digital library development programs decided that a flipment for MOA2 was needed, whi ch led to the development of METS (McDonough, 2005).Metadata Encoding Transmission Standard splendor and SignificanceWhen an institution creates metadata for a resource, particularly a book, the metadata can be apply to aide users in finding the book, and helps the library keep an high-fidelity account of its collection and holdings. However, if the library fails to create accurate morphologic metadata, that does not mean the resource is lost or that the pages of the book will be forever separated. The same cannot be said of books once they atomic twist 18 digitized. When a book is digitized, apiece page becomes a separate resource, and before the intro of METS, there was no encoding standard that provided a platform to create the geomorphologic metadata necessary to digitally bind these resources to ensure that they would be find adequate and able to utilise and evaluated as a cohesive unit (METS An Over conceive Tutorial, 2016). Brad Westbrook, a librarian at the Unive rsity of California in San Diego, get a lines METS as an XML standard that is a type of digital peignoir. It functions to relate the comp whizznts of a digital resource (Rose, 2005). METS was limitedally created for the digital library community to throw in for the digitization and encoding of composite plant digital objects, like books or shows. These resources can contain a commixture of parts as well as different types of files. For example, virtuoso presentation can contain text files, images, scene, and sound files. Using the structural metadata fixingss include in METS, institutions can ensure that all components of a resource be linked, even if they are stored in different fundaments. METS also enables institutions to use structural metadata to control the presentation of resources and ensure that the objects are presented in the way they were intend to be (Rose, 2005).As previously stated, METS was born tabu of MOA2. METS did not replace MOA2, but rather built u pon the work that had already been done. One of the study shortcomings of MOA2 was its lack of flexibility at the local take with administrative and descriptive metadata elements. METS allows for flexibility at the local level with administrative and descriptive metadata, as it does not require either of these to be included in an objects METS document. If descriptive or administrative metadata are used, METS does not require the use of controlled vocabularies for m any(prenominal) elements, and allows for the use of whatever metadata element aim the record creator chooses, furthering its change magnitude flexibility over MOA2 (McDonough, 2005). Additionally, MOA2 was limited by its ability to encode scarce texts and dumb image media. MOA2 was unable to encode audio or video resources. Even in 2001, this would pose a significant challenge to any library with a well-developed collection that was serious nearly digitizing all of its resources (McDonough, 2005). METS gives insti tutions and repositories the ability to encode audio and video resources, in addition to print objects. Finally, METS was created to allow for improved sacramental manduction of digital objects between repositories, which MOA2 could not facilitate (McDonough, 2005).Metadata Encoding Transmission Standard schema expositionMETS documents are created using XML, so that the document is machine readable. A METS document can include up to seven theatrical roles, METS header, descriptive metadata, administrative metadata, file inventory, structural map, structural cogitate, and a ways instalment. The only call for, and intimately important, slit for a METS document is the structural map. The structural map defines a hierarchical coordinate for a digital object, this segmentation is where the relationship between the digital objects files is described. The cultivation found in this instalment is what allows users to much easily look through a digital object, untold in the way a user would look through a tangible book. The structural map can also links the objects digital files back to their descriptive and administrative metadata (McDonough, 2005). The structural map is a eccentric looking at of this scheme because it can be represented by an real(a) diagram that illustrates the relationships between the parts of an object and the objects metadata.Another unique section of the METS document is the structural links section. This section is generally used in the archiving of websites. It allows the document creator to record hyperlinks between items in the structural map. A METS structural map can show the page hierarchy of a website, showing the relationship between a parent page and attendant child pages underneath it. The structural links section allows for the recording of links between the child pages that would not be displayed in a conventional hierarchical organizational structure (METS An Over watch over Tutorial, 2016). The behaviors s ection of a METS document is used to record behavioral metadata. This section records any metadata colligate to software or applications that may be needed to view, or use, a digital object. The behaviors section enables institutions to exercise control over how users experience a digital object. However, this section can also create significant challenges for repositories. Software and applications change consistently and often, rapidly. If a behavior changes, a repository manager would need to shift the record for every object associated with this behavior (McDonough, 2005).The seven required sections of a METS document are also some of the acme level elements used in METS. Other elements unique to METS include, structural requirements, technical requirements, maintenance agency, behavior files, and description rules. This is a departure from other synopsiss that tend to include top level elements that lend themselves solely towards descriptive metadata. In METS, these traditi onal descriptive elements are found within the descriptive metadata element. Here, elements from Dublin Core, MARC, MODS, EAD and VRA can be wrapped inside METS replace elements to describe the digital work (METS An Overview Tutorial, 2016). This differentiation is important because it rein events that while METS does allow for the inclusion of descriptive metadata, its focus is on the administrative and structural metadata that is necessary to maintain the objects original structure and presentation.Metadata Encoding Transmission Standard ResourcesMETS Schema Documentation. (2016, lordly 9). Retrieved butt against 12, 2017, from http//www.loc.gov/standards/mets/mets-schemadocs.htmlSchema Documentation. (2011, July 1). Retrieved defect 12, 2017, from https//www.loc.gov/standards/mets/ pen_docs/mets.profile.v1-2.htmlMETS An Overview Tutorial. (2016, February 9). Retrieved March 12, 2017, from https//www.loc.gov/standards/mets/METSOverview.v2.htmlstructlinkRose, Trish. (Summ er 2005). METS A information Standard for Access and Preservation presently and Into the Future. Digital Letters, 8, 1-4.McDonough, Jerome. (2006, February 1). METS regulate encoding for digital library objects. International daybook on Digital Libraries, 148-158.Metadata Encoding Transmission Standard Example aluminium bluesLomax, Alan1915-2002RecordistHurston, Zora NealeRecordistBarnicle, Mary Elizabeth1891-1978RecordistMetadata Encoding Transmission Standard ConclusionMETS was created in response to a void in the Library and Information apprehension community, with respect to archiving digital objects. Repositories that curate digital objects are tasked with organizing and disseminating a number of resources that can far exceed the collections of institutions with only physical objects in their collections. at once objects become digitized, they also present the unique challenge of taking on characteristics they did not possess as physical objects. In addition to their physical characteristics, these objects now have digital characteristics as well. Ensuring the that the integrity of the objects remain inbuilt is important, if the objects are going to best serve patrons and users. The encoding scheme provided by METS enables institutions to organize and display vast collections of digital objects, while maintaining the objects integrity.METS achieved the flexibility that institutions tangle MOA2 was lacking. However, one of the challenges presented by increased flexibility can be decrease interoperability. The lack of controlled vocabularies and required schema elements in METS gravels it much(prenominal) difficult for person repositories to share digital objects that have been encoded using METS. The afterlife of METS will be focused on overcoming this challenge, and working towards interoperability between repositories. Jerome McDonough suggests that the creation of METS profiles by institutions is a step that can be taken on the road to wards interoperability. In a METS profile document, institutions can detail restrictions on, and guidelines for, creating METS documents. Institutions can include directions about the schema and controlled vocabularies that should be used in the creation of METS documents. Additionally, McDonough suggests that a METS profile could contain guidelines for the forms that should be used for digital objects. This way, repositories could easily communicate with each other regarding the forms of objects that can accept and give. (McDonough, 2006). The LOCs METS website already has information on develop a METS profile for a digital object and describes the requirements for a realised profile. The requirements laid out by the LOC for a METS profile include information about an objects title and creation date, contact information, related profiles, profile context, outside schema, rules of description, controlled vocabularies, structural requirements, technical requirements, tools and app lications, and examples. (METS Profile Components, 2011). As more institutions start to gunmit this profile format, they will be able to move towards increased sharing of metadata and records.Categories for the Description of works of fine art HistoryCataloging non-print items has always proved dispute for the Library and Information Science community. The uniqueness of the objects held by galleries and museums makes standardization and interoperability difficult. As a possible answer to this conundrum, Categories for the Description of workings of machination, or CDWA was developed. CDWA can trace its roots back to the early 1990s when it was created by the contrivance Information Task Force, also known as the AITF. This task force was comprised of art historians, museum curators and registrars, visual resource professionals, art librarians, information managers, and technical specialists. CDWA is the rear end for CDWA clear, an XML schema used to describe whole sheba ng of art that was developed out of CDWA (Categories for the Description of work of Art Introduction, 2015).Categories for the Description of Work of Art impressiveness and SignificanceThe art documentation and museum communities realized that developing a data structure standard for the explicit intend of describing art, architecture, and hooey culture was a necessity (Baca, 2007). As the community was developing and changing, so was its need to describe its collections and holdings. Traditional data structure standards and schema, such as MARC, were primarily mean to describe textual works, as evidenced by the data element sets that include elements such as creator and publisher. These elements simply dont apply to visual works of art. In contrast the CDWA includes 532 categories and submarine sandwichcategories directly related to visual works of art (Baca, 2007). It was important for this community to develop a schema that had a dewy-eyed variety of categories because re positories, like art museums that hold a wide variety of objects. Art objects can include textiles, paintings, pottery, sculpture, and works of architecture vindicatory to name a few.With the development of CDWA this community finally had the data structure standard it needed. However, CDWA is not able to be expressed in a machine-readable form. To be able to make this data machine readable, and thus more sharable, another standard needed to be developed by this community. In response to this need, CDWA light(a) was created. Now, the art documentation and museum communities had an XML schema that was based clear up CDWA. Though this schema does not contain as many categories and subcategories and CDWA, CDWA lightsome still achieves great depth and flexibility with over 300 elements and sub elements (Baca, 2007).Categories for the Description of kit and caboodle of Art Schema DescriptionThe Getty Institute describes the purpose of CDWA on its website stating, The Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA) are a set of guidelines for best practice in cataloging and describing works of art, architecture, other material culture, groups and collections of works, and related images, arranged in a conceptual framework that may be used for designing databases and accessing information (Categories for the Description of Works of Art Introduction, 2015). The kin/subcategory sets for CDWA are vast and allow for detailed and accurate descriptions of these types of collections and holdings. CDWA has several nubble categories that are strongly recommended to be included in the description of a work using this schema. While the IATF states that they feel the encumbrance categories represent the tokenish information necessary to uniquely and unambiguously identify and describe a particular work of art or architecture, they concede that ultimately which mall categories to include should depend on a particular institutions purpose and users (CDWA disputat ion of Categories and Definitions, 2014). The core categories in CDWA are object/work, classification, title or names, creation, measurements, materials and techniques, case matter, current location, related textual references, person/corporate body authority, place/location authority, generic concept authority, and subject authority (Categories for the Description of Works of Art Categories, 2014). These categories clearly lend themselves to describing works of art and differentiate this schema from others like Dublin Core or MARC.In contrast, CDWA light(a) requires few elements, presenting instead a core description of the object (Baca, 2007). Per its website Getty explains that the purpose of CDWA lightheaded is to describe a format for core records for works of art and material culture, based on the data elements and guidelines contained in the Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA) and Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) (CDWA Lite Specification for an XML Sche ma for bestow Records via the OAI harvest-home Protocol, 2006). Records created with CDWA Lite are less detailed that those created using CDWA intentionally, so that they represent the amount of the work. Murtha Baca of the Getty Research institute says The goal of the CDWA Lite schema is to provide core descriptive metadata about cultural works-i.e., an essential metadata record that can be easily shared and contributed to union resources and that provides enough information to enable users to guess what the work is and what institution owns it (Baca, 2007). The core categories recommended by the IATF for CDWA are the basis for the xxii high level elements in the CDWA Lite schema. In this schema elements 1-19 hatful with descriptive metadata and elements 20-22 deal with administrative metadata. (CDWA Lite Specification for an XML Schema for Contributing Records via the OAI Harvesting Protocol, 2006). Within CDWA Lite, only nine of the twenty-two top level elements are require d. These elements are, object/work type wrapper, title wrapper, display creator, list creator wrapper, display materials/techniques, indexing dates wrapper, location/repository wrapper, and record wrapper (CDWA Lite Specification for an XML Schema for Contributing Records via the OAI Harvesting Protocol, 2006).One of most unique features of CDWA and CDWA Lite is that within the required categories and elements, there are recommended sub elements and sub categories. For example, within the creation category for CDWA the following sub categories are also strongly recommended, creator description, creator identity, creator role, creation date, early date, and latest date. (CDWA List of Categories and Definitions, 2014). There are considerably more recommended categories and subcategories required by CDWA than other metadata schemas I have encountered thus far. The inclusion of such a wide variety of elements and sub elements is essential when an institution holds objects in its colle ction that all possess distinct characteristics.Another interesting aspect of this schema is the harvesting ability of CDWA Lite. CDWA Lite records foster interoperability between museums and other institutions that use the Open Archives Initiative, or OAI by allowing repositories to harvest metadata from one another (CDWA Lite Specification for an XML Schema for Contributing Records via the OAI Harvesting Protocol, 2006). harmonize to Murtha Baca of the Getty Research Institute this is an advantage because the metadata comes from (or should come from) the institution that owns the corresponding objects or items, and is therefore accurate and authoritative (Baca, 2007). As was mentioned earlier, an XML record that is created using CDWA Lite represents only the most core information about the work. This was done to make the harvesting of metadata using this schema achievable and manageable (Baca, 2007).Categories for the Description of Works of Art ResourcesCategories for the Descri ption of Works of Art Introduction. (2015, October 6). Retrieved March 20, 2017, from http//www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/cdwa/introduction.htmlCategories for the Description of Works of Art Categories. (2014, April 9). Retrieved March 19, 2017, from http//www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/cdwa/categories.htmlCategories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA). (2012, August 9). Retrieved March 23, 2017, from http//www2.archivists.org/groups/standards-committee/categories-for-the-description-of-works-of-art-cdwaCDWA Lite Specification for an XML Schema for Contributing Records via the OAI Harvesting Protocol. (2006, July 17). Retrieved March 22, 2017, from http//www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/cdwa/cdwalite.pdfBaca, Murtha. (Spring 2007). CCO and CDW Lite Complementary info Content and Data Format Standards for Art and Material Culture Information. VRA Bulltein, Vol. 34, act 1, 1-8.Categories for the Description of Works of Art Example 12345http//www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/o1091.html 12346http//www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/o1092.html 98077 full view, oblique view from the right front corner generalviewoblique view1996 98076 detail of the desktop with inlaid coat of armsoverhead view detailviewcoat of arms Metadata Encoding Transmission Standard ConclusionMuseums and art institutions recognized the need for a cataloging system that enabled them to accurately represent the works held in their collections which led to the development of CDWA. As more institutions and repositories began to develop digital collections, a new need also arose. Institutions that previously had distinct collections found themselves having the same digitized copies of works in their online repositories. Interoperability, which wasnt as a great of a need before now needed to be realized. It was this realization that led CDWA Lite.Both CDWA and CDWA Lite have element and sub e lement sets with a great amount of depth that are specific to describing works of art. Within CDWA this allows for the development of rich and accurate records. Within some(prenominal) CDWA and CDWA Lite the element and sub element sets allow institutions to use one system to catalog a variety of works that have variant properties. This need sets this community apart from the library and archival communities which mainly offer textual objects. These schemas rely heavily on descriptive metadata, and most of the elements in the CDWA and CDWA Lite element sets fall under the descriptive metadata umbrella. Through CDWA Lite institutions are also able to harvest metadata from each other, enabling museums and art repositories to create accurate and up to date records for digitized works.CDWA and CDWA Lite are still relatively young schemas, CDWA just reached is barely twenty years old. Considering the future of the schemas, one change that may come for CDWA Lite is the inclusion of mor e of the elements and sub elements from CDWA (CDWA Lite Specification for an XML Schema for Contributing Records via the OAI Harvesting Protocol, 2006). Adding more elements to CDWA Lite would enable museums to make the metadata for more of the objects in their collections harvestable and would increase the quality of the harvested metadata. It will be exciting to see how this schema develops and continues to improve standardized cataloging and interoperability in the museums and art repository communities.Works CitedBaca, Murtha. (Spring 2007). CCO and CDW Lite Complementary Data Content and Data Format Standards for Art and Material Culture Information. VRA Bulltein, Vol. 34, Number 1, 1-8.Categories for the Description of Works of Art Introduction. (2015, October 6). Retrieved March 20, 2017, from http//www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/cdwa/introduction.htmlCategories for the Description of Works of Art Categories. (2014, April 9). Retrieved March 19, 2017, from http//www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/cdwa/categories.htmlCategories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA). (2012, August 9). Retrieved March 23, 2017, from http//www2.archivists.org/groups/standards-committee/categories-for-the-description-of-works-of-art-cdwaCDWA List of Categories and Definitions. (2014). Retrievied March 23, 2017 from https//getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/cdwa/definitions.pdfCDWA Lite Specification for an XML Schema for Contributing Records via the OAI Harvesting Protocol. (2006, July 17). Retrieved March 22, 2017, from http//www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/cdwa/cdwalite.pdfMcDonough, Jerome. (2006, February 1). METS standardized encoding for digital library objects. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 148-158.METS Example Documents. (2016, February 9). Retrieved March 14, 2017, from https//www.loc.gov/standards/mets/mets-examples.htmlMETS An Overview Tutori al. (2016, February 9). Retrieved March 12, 2017, from https//www.loc.gov/standards/mets/METSOverview.v2.htmlstructlinkMETS Schema Documentation. (2016, August 9). Retrieved March 12, 2017, from http//www.loc.gov/standards/mets/mets-schemadocs.htmlRose, Trish. (Summer 2005). METS A Data Standard for Access and Preservation Now and Into the Future. Digital Letters, 8, 1-4.Schema Documentation. (2011, July 1). Retrieved March 12, 2017, from https//www.loc.gov/standards/mets/profile_docs/mets.profile.v1-2.html