Will,
We had very similar requirements to those that are in your email and on your
blog. And we developed a web-based administrative interface to our fedora
repository to meet our own needs. It allows us to directly manage the
metadata and content in our repository. It is scalable, in that we can
manage all of our different digital object types (image, tei essay, video,
ead finding aid, book, and collection) through one interface.
Some of the features of our admin interface:
* ability to create new digital objects
* ability to search existing digital objects
* ability to upload/replace/delete content
* ability to edit metadata
* ability to assign digital objects to collection(s)
* ability to feature digital objects in collection(s)
* data integrity checking based on digital object type and collection-based
metadata rules; digital object candidate statuses
* automated creation of derivatives (at least for images - thumbnails and
zoomify tilesets)
* web-based descriptive metadata editing screens
* ability to manipulate structural and relationship metadata of digital
objects
* controlled vocabulary for metadata entry
Some features being worked on:
* dynamic lookup during metadata entry for semi-controlled vocabulary lists
* online help for metadata editing
In our admin interface, we have developed a tool that meets our needs, but
is not flexible to meet the needs of the field. It is currently tied to
our
Fedora implementation, our data model, and our choice of metadata schemes.
Dave
----------------------
David Kennedy
Manager, Digital Collections and Research
University of Maryland
3199 McKeldin Library
College Park, MD 20742
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(301) 405-9051
(301) 314-9408 FAX
Will Sexton wrote:
In January of 2007 I sent a post to the Web4lib list titled "Metadata
tools that scale." At Duke we were seeking opinions about a software
platform to capture metadata for digital collections and finding
databases. The responses to that inquiry suggested that what we were
seeking didn't exist.
About a year ago, an OCLC report on a survey of 18 member institutions,
"RLG Programs Descriptive Metadata Practices Survey Results," supported
that basic conclusion. When asked about the tools that they used to
"create, edit and store metadata descrptions" of digital and physical
resources, a sizable majority responded "customized" or "homegrown" tool.
Since my initial inquiry, we launched a new installation of our digital
collections at http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/. Yet we still
lack a full-featured software platform for capturing descriptive metadata.
We did our own informal survey of peer institutions building digital
collections, which further reinforced that familiar conclusion -- there
are lots of Excel spreadsheets, Access and FileMaker databases, etc., out
there, but no available enterprise-level solution (and we're still happy
to be wrong on this point).
We also articulated a detailed series of specifications for a metadata
tool. The library has committed to hiring two programmers each to a
two-year appointment for producing a tool that meets these specs. I just
posted on this list the job description, for which there are two openings.
I have a longer version of this post on our digital collections blog
(http://library.duke.edu/blogs/digital-collections/2008/10/10/a-metadata-tool-that-scales/),
listing our specifications in more detail. But here are some of the
basics:
* Digitization: integrates with, or provides a module for, management of
digitization workflow.
* Description: supports a collections-based data model; flexible metadata
schema (for us, the "Duke Core", derived from qualified Dublin Core);
authority lists; cardinality and required-field constraints; metametadata
(i.e., flagging, notations and status indicators for individual items);
access control; simple and intuitive use.
* Publication: exports METS documents as well as other common formats
(CSV, etc.).
* Asset Management: must be compatible with an asset management policy.
While the Duke specifications are particular to our internal needs, I
think we captured a lot of what makes the need for a full-featured
metadata tool felt around the field. I have some ideas about how to go
about implementing this set of specifications, but thought I'd see if the
concept might spur discussion on CODE4LIB. How would you approach this
project? Any thoughts on architecture, platform, data models,
methodologies?
Will
--
Will Sexton
Metadata Analyst / Programmer
Duke University Libraries
