Metadata · 13
CONTENTdm are by far the most frequently used
software. Other commonly used systems include
Fedora, Luna Insight, DLXS, and Greenstone. More
than a dozen other systems were also identified.
Interoperability is essential to facilitate the exchange
and sharing of metadata and to enable cross-do-
main searching. The survey responses indicate that
various attempts have been made to achieve meta-
data interoperability. Fifty-three respondents (83%)
report that they have adopted the Open Archives
Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-
PMH). Forty-seven libraries (73%) use metadata
crosswalk. Other advanced methods and standards
are being used to promote metadata interoperabil-
ity and management, including METS (45%), RDF
(25%), metadata registries (20%), and application
profiles (20%).
Metadata Quality Control
Respondents were asked how they maintain quali-
ty control for metadata and to briefly describe their
quality control methods. Fifty-six libraries (83%)
reported that metadata are manually checked and
approved before publishing. Forty-one (73%) in-
dicated that metadata created by users or content
creators are checked and approved by library staff.
One respondent stated that their library checks 10%
of in-house created metadata as well as 10% of ven-
dor created metadata. Other quality control meth-
ods include authority control, XML and schema/
DTD validation, and compliance with application
profiles. Some respondents mentioned that they
use locally developed scripts or a variety of open-
source and commercial quality control software.
The comments indicate that different quality con-
trol measures are used for different projects. Some
believe that more and more content creators will
create metadata, which will need more efforts on
quality control. One respondent mentioned that
they are “currently investigating more automated
methods of metadata checking. This is especially
important for content creators.” Some commented
that metadata creation is time-consuming and ex-
pensive another that the challenge is to reconcile
metadata quality vs. metadata cost.
Organizational Change
Fifty-five libraries (85%) reported organizational
changes in response to the demands of metadata
services while ten reported no organizational
changes. Existing positions were redefined to in-
corporate metadata responsibilities at 36 libraries
(62%). Twenty-six institutions (45%) created at least
one new metadata position twelve of these posi-
tions were given primary responsibility for man-
aging metadata activities. A variety of titles are
used, some of which include the term “metadata,”
for example: “Metadata Librarian,” “Metadata
Specialist,” “Catalog/Metadata Librarian,” and
“Metadata Architect.” Other titles are: “Text
Processing and Mark-up Coordinator,” “Digital
Projects Coordinator,” “Digital Collections
Librarian,” “Digital Content Librarian,” “Digital
Services Librarian,” “Digital Projects Archivist,”
and “Electronic Resources Librarian.”
Seven separate new units for metadata services
were created with the names “Metadata Unit,”
(two responses) “Metadata Services,” “Quality
Control Unit,” “Digital Access,” “Digital Resources
Metadata Section,” and “Cataloging and Metadata
Services.” Thirteen respondents incorporated
metadata services into existing departments and
renamed them. For example, “Cataloging Services”
became “Cataloging and Metadata Services ”
“Special Collection Team” was renamed “Special
Collections and Metadata Section ” and “Access,
Support, and Accounting” changed to “Scholarly
Resources Integration Department.” A larger num-
ber of respondents (21 or 36%) incorporated meta-
data services into existing departments without
making any name changes.
CONTENTdm are by far the most frequently used
software. Other commonly used systems include
Fedora, Luna Insight, DLXS, and Greenstone. More
than a dozen other systems were also identified.
Interoperability is essential to facilitate the exchange
and sharing of metadata and to enable cross-do-
main searching. The survey responses indicate that
various attempts have been made to achieve meta-
data interoperability. Fifty-three respondents (83%)
report that they have adopted the Open Archives
Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-
PMH). Forty-seven libraries (73%) use metadata
crosswalk. Other advanced methods and standards
are being used to promote metadata interoperabil-
ity and management, including METS (45%), RDF
(25%), metadata registries (20%), and application
profiles (20%).
Metadata Quality Control
Respondents were asked how they maintain quali-
ty control for metadata and to briefly describe their
quality control methods. Fifty-six libraries (83%)
reported that metadata are manually checked and
approved before publishing. Forty-one (73%) in-
dicated that metadata created by users or content
creators are checked and approved by library staff.
One respondent stated that their library checks 10%
of in-house created metadata as well as 10% of ven-
dor created metadata. Other quality control meth-
ods include authority control, XML and schema/
DTD validation, and compliance with application
profiles. Some respondents mentioned that they
use locally developed scripts or a variety of open-
source and commercial quality control software.
The comments indicate that different quality con-
trol measures are used for different projects. Some
believe that more and more content creators will
create metadata, which will need more efforts on
quality control. One respondent mentioned that
they are “currently investigating more automated
methods of metadata checking. This is especially
important for content creators.” Some commented
that metadata creation is time-consuming and ex-
pensive another that the challenge is to reconcile
metadata quality vs. metadata cost.
Organizational Change
Fifty-five libraries (85%) reported organizational
changes in response to the demands of metadata
services while ten reported no organizational
changes. Existing positions were redefined to in-
corporate metadata responsibilities at 36 libraries
(62%). Twenty-six institutions (45%) created at least
one new metadata position twelve of these posi-
tions were given primary responsibility for man-
aging metadata activities. A variety of titles are
used, some of which include the term “metadata,”
for example: “Metadata Librarian,” “Metadata
Specialist,” “Catalog/Metadata Librarian,” and
“Metadata Architect.” Other titles are: “Text
Processing and Mark-up Coordinator,” “Digital
Projects Coordinator,” “Digital Collections
Librarian,” “Digital Content Librarian,” “Digital
Services Librarian,” “Digital Projects Archivist,”
and “Electronic Resources Librarian.”
Seven separate new units for metadata services
were created with the names “Metadata Unit,”
(two responses) “Metadata Services,” “Quality
Control Unit,” “Digital Access,” “Digital Resources
Metadata Section,” and “Cataloging and Metadata
Services.” Thirteen respondents incorporated
metadata services into existing departments and
renamed them. For example, “Cataloging Services”
became “Cataloging and Metadata Services ”
“Special Collection Team” was renamed “Special
Collections and Metadata Section ” and “Access,
Support, and Accounting” changed to “Scholarly
Resources Integration Department.” A larger num-
ber of respondents (21 or 36%) incorporated meta-
data services into existing departments without
making any name changes.
