Metadata · 55
1. Building Repository Infrastructure
2. Training
3. Management buy-in
1. Choosing which scheme will offer most interoperability in the future
2. Finding competent people to do specific tasks
3. Getting metadata from creators
1. Control over materials and priorities
2. Lack of concentrated IT support
3. Access to digital content once created
1. Cost and difficulty of creating good, consistent metadata across multiple formats, implementation systems, etc.
2. Difficulty in maintaining static stores of metadata in systems without anything like “authority control” to police the data
and perform functions such as cross-referencing
3. Meeting increasing demand for metadata skills and support throughout the library
1. Creating the right internal organization for providing metadata services
2. Too many standards for creating metadata
3. Trying to stay abreast of new developments, different standards and best practices
1. Determining the best methods for sharing metadata with researchers/other institutions
2. Keeping up to date with appropriate metadata formats for a variety of media types
3. Automated metadata collection
1. Develop local infrastructure for developing and delivering digital projects, including metadata
2. Identify permanent staff to create metadata for future non-grant projects.
1. Developing guidelines for the creation, maintenance, and implementation of administrative and technical metadata
2. Increasing metadata awareness throughout technical services
3. Finding ways to streamline metadata production and collection to handle the ever-increasing amounts of digital content
we work with
1. Digital Library Services, the unit responsible for metadata, was established fairly recently (Jan. 2006), so we’re still working
to develop efficient project management, workflow, and QC procedures for metadata
2. Developing a plan to incorporate metadata production into Central Technical Services
3. Inability of the institution’s current digital asset management system (CONTENTdm) to accommodate standards such as
MODS, METS and EAD; subsequent ‘dumbing down’ of data to Qualified Dublin Core to accommodate the system
1. Funding
2. Software support
3. Staffing
1. Getting subject specialists to agree on one set of metadata standards for like objects
2. Settling on a set of standards without constantly tweaking them
3. Developing a workflow between departments (we manage digital projects in a decentralized fashion, with IT, preservation,
collection development and cataloging/metadata units all working together)
1. Integrating metadata creation work into more individual’s daily workflows. We will continue to have more and more of
this work
Previous Page Next Page