Re: [CODE4LIB] Visualization of the Metadata Universe

2010-06-23 Thread Eric Lease Morgan
Riley, Jenn wrote:

Fun! Library Land needs more illustrations. We may know how to organize 
information bibliographically, but, in general, we don't know how to organize 
information graphically. Nice job!

Eric Morgan

Re: [CODE4LIB] Visualization of the Metadata Universe

2010-06-22 Thread Riley, Jenn
A quick followup to those who took a look at this since I sent the initial 
announcement out last night. The eagle-eyed Tim Spalding pointed out the data 
in the Libraries slice was incorrect (what do you mean MARC doesn't end up in 
the strong category for libraries?!?) - we'd inadvertently used the wrong 
data for this sliver. This has now been corrected in the online version. My 
apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused anyone.


Jenn Riley
Metadata Librarian
Digital Library Program
Indiana University - Bloomington
Wells Library W501
(812) 856-5759

Inquiring Librarian blog:

 -Original Message-
 From: Riley, Jenn
 Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 7:27 PM
 To: 'A listserv for Metadata Librarians'; '';
 'Code for Libraries'; '';
 ''; ''; 'Encoded Archival
 Description List'; ''; ''; MLA-; 'Metadata Object Description Schema List';; 'Next generation catalogs for libraries'; OLAC-; '';;; ''
 Cc: 'Devin Becker'
 Subject: Visualization of the Metadata Universe

 (This message is being sent to multiple lists; please excuse

 The sheer number of metadata standards in the cultural heritage sector
 is overwhelming, and their inter-relationships further complicate the
 situation. A new resource, Seeing Standards: A Visualization of the
 Metadata Universe,, is intended to
 assist planners with the selection and implementation of metadata
 standards. Seeing Standards is in two parts: (1) a poster-sized
 visualization plotting standards based on their applicability in a
 variety of contexts, and (2) a glossary of metadata standards in either
 poster or pamphlet form.

 Each of the 105 standards listed is evaluated on its strength of
 application to defined categories in each of four axes: community,
 domain, function, and purpose. Standards more strongly allied with a
 category are displayed towards the center of each hemisphere, and those
 still applicable but less strongly allied are displayed along the
 edges. The strength of a standard in a given category is determined by
 a mixture of its adoption in that category, its design intent, and its
 overall appropriateness for use in that category.

 The standards represented are among those most heavily used or
 publicized in the cultural heritage community, though certainly not all
 standards that might be relevant are included. A small set of the
 metadata standards plotted on the main visualization also appear as
 highlights above the graphic. These represent the most commonly known
 or discussed standards for cultural heritage metadata.

 Work preparing Seeing Standards was supported by a professional
 development grant from the Indiana University Libraries. Content was
 developed by Jenn Riley, Metadata Librarian in the Indiana University
 Digital Library Program. Design work was performed by Devin Becker of
 the Indiana University School of Library and Information Science, and
 soon to be Digital Initiatives  Scholarly Communications Librarian at
 the University of Idaho.

 I hope this resource proves to be helpful to those working with
 metadata standards in libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural
 heritage institutions.


 Jenn Riley
 Metadata Librarian
 Digital Library Program
 Indiana University - Bloomington
 Wells Library W501
 (812) 856-5759

 Inquiring Librarian blog:

Re: [CODE4LIB] Visualization of the Metadata Universe

2010-06-21 Thread Tim Spalding

It's really beautiful. Like a good map or timetable, you can pore over
it for hours. I want a big copy for the office.

Can you explain it to me a little? For example, what does it mean to
say that XML or MPEG-21 has a much stronger connection to the library
community—as defined by uptake, intent and appropriateness—than MARC
and LCSH? That seems literally backwards. One can perhaps argue
appropriateness in various ways, but MARC and LCSH are ubiquitous
and intended for libraries in a way the others are not.

I also suggest changing scholarly texts to texts. There are lots
of texts which aren't really scholarly texts that libraries—even
academic libraries—care about, aren't there? Also, while putting them
together has virtues, might there be cause to separate book-texts and
article-texts? They certainly differ considerably when it comes to the
update and appropriateness of various standards.