Advertisement

Archival Science

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 285–294 | Cite as

Evaluating metadata on a metalevel

  • Wendy M. Duff
Reports

Abstract

This paper compares the purpose, content, structure and level of specificity of two archival metadata schemes:The International Standards for Archival Description (ISAD (G)) and the Business Acceptable Communication model (BAC) developed by the University of Pittsburgh Project. It suggests that different archival views guided the work of the two projects and these views influenced and shaped the respective schemes. Finally it recommends that archivists involve users in the development of their schemes to ensure the identification of the right metadata at the appropriate level of specificity to meet users' need.

Keywords

(recordkeeping) metadata standards 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. 1.
    Stewart Alsop, “Without Metadata, Content is Just Bits”, Fortune.com (Nov. 27 2000) http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/alsop/0,5238,88063,00.htmlGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernard J. Hurley et al.,The Making of America Testbed Project: A Digital Library Service Model (Washington: The Digital Library Federation, 1999), p. 7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star,Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999), p. 287.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    , pp. 294–295.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Council of Archives. Ad Hoc Commission on Descriptive Standards. ISAD (G) General International Standard Archival Description (Ottawa: ICA, 1994).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    “Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping”, http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~nhprc/Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Godfrey Rust, “Metadata: The Right Approach, an Integrated Model for Descriptive and Rights Metadata in E-commerce”,Dlib Magazine (1998) http://www.dlib.org./dlib/july98/rust/07rust.html.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anne Gilliland-Swetland, “Setting the Stage”, in M. Bace (ed.),Introduction to Metadata: Pathways to Digital Information (Getty Institute, 1998) http://www.getty.edu/gri/standard/intrometadata/2_articles/index.htm.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sue McKemmish, Glenda Acland and Barbara Reed, “Towards a Framework for Standardising Recordkeeping Metadata: The Australian Recordkeeping Metadata Schema” (1999) http://www.sims.monash.edu.au/rcrg/publications/framewrk.htmlGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Documents in the Digital Culture: Shaping the Future: A Report on a Workshop Held at: The Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences January 1995, p. 17 http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Info/Hiconf/toc.htmlGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Documents in the Digital Culture: Shaping the Future: A Report on a Workshop Held at: The Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences January 1995, p. 17 http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Info/Hiconf/toc.html, p. 12Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    David Bearman, Eric Miller, Godfrey Rust, Jennifer Trant and Stuart Weibel, “A Common Model to Support Interoperable Metadata: Progress Report on Reconciling Metadata Requirements from the Dublin Core and INDECS/DOI Communities”,Dlib Magazine (1999), http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/bearman/01bearman.htmlGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    International Council of Archives. Ad Hoc Commission on Descriptive Standards. ISAD (G) General International Standard Archival Description (Ottawa: ICA, 1994).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Council of Archives (1990). Statement of principles regarding archival description.Archivi and Computers (1): 8–11.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    International Council of Archives (1990). Statement of principles regarding archival description.Archivi and Computers (1): 8–11.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wendy Duff, “Ensuring the Preservation of Reliable Evidence: A Research Project funded by the NHPRC”,Archivaria 42 (Fall 1996): 28–45.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    David Bearman and Wendy Duff, “Grounding Archival Description in the Functional Requirements for Evidence,”Archivaria 41 (Spring 1996), p. 278.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    David Bearman, “Item Level Control and Electronic Recordkeeping,”Archives and Museum Informatics 10(3) (1996): 195–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    David Bearman and Wendy Duff, “Grounding Archival Description in the Functional Requirements for Evidence”,Archivaria 41 (Spring 1996): 275–303.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Willy Cromwell-Kessler, “Crosswalks: the path to Universal Access”, in M. Baca (ed.),Introduction to Metadata: Pathways to Digital Information(Getty Institute, 1998), http://www.getty.edu/gri/standard/intrometadata/define.htmGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Soo Young Rieh and Nicholas J. Belkin, “Understanding Judgement of Information Quality and Cognitive Authority in the WWW”, inProceeding of the 61st ASIS Annual Meeting 1998: Information Access in the Global Economy (Medford, N.J.: ASIS, 1998) pp. 279–289.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Recently interest in conducting these types of studies has increased. For example see, Charles Cole, “Name Collection by Ph.D. History Students: Inducing Expertise”,Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51(5) (2000): 444–455; David Bearman, “User Presentation Language in Archives”,Archives and Museum Informatics 3(4) (Winter 1989/90):3–7; Louise Gagnon-Arguin, “Les questions de recherche comme materiau d'etudes des usagers en vue du tratement des archives”,Archivaria 46 (1998): 86–102; Karen Collins, “Providing Subject Access to Images: A Study of User Queries”,American Archivist 61 (Spring 1998): 36–55;Archivaria 46 (1998): 86–102; and Wendy M. Duff and Catherine A Johnson, “A Virtual Expression of Need”,American Archivist 64 (2001): 43–60.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bowker and Star, p. 276.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wendy M. Duff
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Information StudiesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations