12 · SPEC Kit 298
cational repositories, metadata registries, digital
media labs, EAD-finding aids, and online journal
publishing. As one respondent commented, meta-
data is distributed throughout several parts of the
library and is more broadly applied than solely to
digitization projects. Consequently, metadata has
been created to describe and provide access to a
wide variety of digital resources, including images,
text, collections, audio, maps, video, datasets, EAD
finding aids, theses, and Web pages.
Metadata Standards
The metadata schemas most widely used by survey
respondents are MARC (91%), Encoded Archival
Description (84%), Dublin Core (78%), and Qualified
Dublin Core (67%). Other commonly used schemas
include Text Encoding Initiative Header, Metadata
Object Description Schema, and Visual Resources
Association Core Categories. A few respondents
reported using an array of other schemas for geo-
spatial data, learning objects, works of art, MPEG
multimedia files, statistics, databases, etc. Some re-
spondents commented that local or “home grown”
metadata standards have been developed.
Survey respondents apply a wide range of con-
trolled vocabularies to metadata, including thesau-
ri, indexes, subject headings, authority files, terms,
and ontologies. More than half of the responding
libraries use LCSH, LC Name Authority File, and
Art and Architecture Thesaurus. A significant num-
ber use the LC Thesaurus for Graphical Materials I
and II, Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names, and
Getty Union List of Artist Names. About a quarter
use MeSH and the Geographic Names Information
Service. As with schemas, there are a number of
other controlled vocabularies in use, including lo-
cally created ones.
Metadata Creation and Management
When asked whether metadata is created manually
or automatically, all but one respondent reported
that metadata is created manually. Nine of these
also create metadata automatically and 16 also cre-
ate metadata automatically with human interven-
tion. Eighteen of the respondents reported using all
three methods.
The majority of respondents has multiple meta-
data creators, primarily catalogers (87%), archivists
(72%), metadata librarians/specialists (59%), and
subject librarians/specialists (49%). Support staff
(66%) and student workers (57%) are important
contributors to metadata creation and 42 institu-
tions (62%) reported that content creators provide
metadata. Database librarians, programmers, pres-
ervation librarians, special collections librarians,
curators, digital initiatives librarians, and digi-
tal programs librarians also contribute metadata.
Given the collaborative nature of metadata-related
initiatives and projects, it is not surprising that 35
institutions (52%) have accepted metadata from
project partners outside of the libraries and 20
(29%) have accepted metadata from vendors.
Survey respondents identified over two dozen soft-
ware products and tools that they have used for
metadata generation. The most commonly used in-
clude spreadsheet software such as Excel, relation-
al databases such as Access, Oracle, and MySQL,
and MARCEdit. Many respondents also use XML
editors with support for XML editing and valida-
tion, schema and DTD editing and validation, and
XSL editing and transformation such as Oxygen,
XML Spy, Stylus Studio, and XMetaL. Quite a few
respondents also listed locally developed tools.
Almost everyone uses a combination of products
for creating and editing metadata.
In addition to metadata editors and generators,
there are various sophisticated digital reposito-
ry and content management systems in use that
support metadata creation, editing, and delivery.
Other than locally developed systems, DSpace and
cational repositories, metadata registries, digital
media labs, EAD-finding aids, and online journal
publishing. As one respondent commented, meta-
data is distributed throughout several parts of the
library and is more broadly applied than solely to
digitization projects. Consequently, metadata has
been created to describe and provide access to a
wide variety of digital resources, including images,
text, collections, audio, maps, video, datasets, EAD
finding aids, theses, and Web pages.
Metadata Standards
The metadata schemas most widely used by survey
respondents are MARC (91%), Encoded Archival
Description (84%), Dublin Core (78%), and Qualified
Dublin Core (67%). Other commonly used schemas
include Text Encoding Initiative Header, Metadata
Object Description Schema, and Visual Resources
Association Core Categories. A few respondents
reported using an array of other schemas for geo-
spatial data, learning objects, works of art, MPEG
multimedia files, statistics, databases, etc. Some re-
spondents commented that local or “home grown”
metadata standards have been developed.
Survey respondents apply a wide range of con-
trolled vocabularies to metadata, including thesau-
ri, indexes, subject headings, authority files, terms,
and ontologies. More than half of the responding
libraries use LCSH, LC Name Authority File, and
Art and Architecture Thesaurus. A significant num-
ber use the LC Thesaurus for Graphical Materials I
and II, Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names, and
Getty Union List of Artist Names. About a quarter
use MeSH and the Geographic Names Information
Service. As with schemas, there are a number of
other controlled vocabularies in use, including lo-
cally created ones.
Metadata Creation and Management
When asked whether metadata is created manually
or automatically, all but one respondent reported
that metadata is created manually. Nine of these
also create metadata automatically and 16 also cre-
ate metadata automatically with human interven-
tion. Eighteen of the respondents reported using all
three methods.
The majority of respondents has multiple meta-
data creators, primarily catalogers (87%), archivists
(72%), metadata librarians/specialists (59%), and
subject librarians/specialists (49%). Support staff
(66%) and student workers (57%) are important
contributors to metadata creation and 42 institu-
tions (62%) reported that content creators provide
metadata. Database librarians, programmers, pres-
ervation librarians, special collections librarians,
curators, digital initiatives librarians, and digi-
tal programs librarians also contribute metadata.
Given the collaborative nature of metadata-related
initiatives and projects, it is not surprising that 35
institutions (52%) have accepted metadata from
project partners outside of the libraries and 20
(29%) have accepted metadata from vendors.
Survey respondents identified over two dozen soft-
ware products and tools that they have used for
metadata generation. The most commonly used in-
clude spreadsheet software such as Excel, relation-
al databases such as Access, Oracle, and MySQL,
and MARCEdit. Many respondents also use XML
editors with support for XML editing and valida-
tion, schema and DTD editing and validation, and
XSL editing and transformation such as Oxygen,
XML Spy, Stylus Studio, and XMetaL. Quite a few
respondents also listed locally developed tools.
Almost everyone uses a combination of products
for creating and editing metadata.
In addition to metadata editors and generators,
there are various sophisticated digital reposito-
ry and content management systems in use that
support metadata creation, editing, and delivery.
Other than locally developed systems, DSpace and
