Table of Contents

  1. 1 Acknowledgements (0)
  2. 2 Glossary of Selected Terms and Acronyms (0)
  3. 3 Executive Summary (0)
  4. 4 Background (0)
  5. 4.1 Aims of the Study (0)
  6. 4.2 Setting the Scene (0)
  7. 5 Methodology and Sources (0)
  8. 5.1 Desk Research (0)
  9. 5.2 The Consultation Exercise (0)
  10. 6 Main Findings (0)
  11. 6.1 What can be learnt from other metadata aggregators? (0)
  12. 6.2 Would an aggregation of metadata for images, films and sounds be used? (0)
  13. 6.3 What collections are sought by learners, teachers and researchers? (0)
  14. 6.4 What are the metadata considerations? (1)
  15. 6.5 What would it take to participate in an aggregation of metadata about images, films and sounds? (0)
  16. 7 What challenges and barriers must be resolved? (0)
  17. 7.1 Legal: IPR, Contractual (0)
  18. 7.2 Metadata Quality (0)
  19. 7.3 Organisational (0)
  20. 7.4 Financial (0)
  21. 8 Conclusions [i] (0)
  22. 8.1 Metadata (0)
  23. 8.2 Metadata Contributors (0)
  24. 8.3 Metadata Aggregation Model (0)
  25. 8.4 Aggregated Metadata Consumers (0)
  26. 9 Recommendations (0)
  27. 9.1 Aggregator Recommendations (0)
  28. 9.2 RDTF Management Framework Recommendation (0)
  29. 10 Bibliography (0)
  30. Appendix A – Desk Research (0)
  31. A-1.1 Aims & Objectives for Desk Research (0)
  32. A-1.2 Background (0)
  33. A-1.3 Importance of Metadata (0)
  34. A-1.4 Why aggregate metadata? (0)
  35. A-1.5 What Are The Barriers To Sharing, Re-using And Aggregating Metadata? (0)
  36. A-1.6 What Has Been Done Elsewhere? (0)
  37. A-1.7 Standards (0)
  38. Appendix B – Online Survey (0)
  39. Appendix C – Metadata Aggregation Models (0)
  40. C-1.1 Common (Standardised) Schema Metadata Aggregation Model (2)
  41. C-1.2 Multiple Schemas Metadata Aggregation Model (0)
  42. C-1.3 Federated Search Model (0)
  43. C-1.4 Linked Data Model (0)
  44. C-1.5 Mixed Model (0)
  45. Appendix D – Online Survey Analysis (0)
  46. D-1.1 Approximately how many of the following types of digital resources do you currently hold? (Q3.1) (0)
  47. D-1.2 Is the metadata for the digital resources you hold also digitised? (Q3.2) (0)
  48. D-1.3 What formats of digital resources do you need for your work? For example, jpeg, high-resolution 3D viewers, mp3, etc. (Q5.2) (0)
  49. D-1.4 Who do you think the principal users of an aggregation of metadata would be? (Q6.1) (0)
  50. D-1.5 What benefits do you see in developing aggregation(s) of metadata for images, films/videos and sounds, or services based on such an aggregation? (Q6.3) (0)
  51. D-1.6 Should metadata be enriched? If so, who should do this? (Q6.4) (0)
  52. D-1.7 What barriers exist for you or your organisation sharing or using metadata or an aggregation of metadata for images and time-based media? (Q6.5) (0)
  53. D-1.8 Should metadata be normalised into a common standard? If so, who should do this? (Q7.2) (0)

This blog is to share the final report for the JISC-funded Scoping Study: Aggregations of Metadata about Images and Time-based Media and was previously used to invite comment and discussion on each of the sections of the report. Comments are now closed, and thanks given to those who have commented and given feedback. This was the first time EDINA used this approach to sharing a final report, and your comments have been valuable.

Downloadable pdf versions of this Final Report and Appendices A-E are available from the Scoping Study: Aggregations of Metadata about Images and Time-based Media Project Page.

The supplementary Appendix (E Use of Blog and Comment Software for Feedback) is also available for download and is not available on this blog. This is to share experience with others considering use of a blog for feedback on a report; and to help other users who intend to use the WordPress Blog software with the plugin.

Title: Scoping Study: Aggregations of Metadata about Images and Time-based Media
Carried out by: EDINA (JISC National Data Centre)
Authors: Sheila Fraser, Leah Halliday, James Stewart, Caroline Ingram and Tim Stickland
Date: October 2010

The aim of this short (3-month) scoping study was to determine the feasibility, viability and value of creating an aggregation of metadata about images and time-based media (films and sounds). The research was conducted by EDINA, and is intended to contribute to the implementation of the Resource Discovery Taskforce vision of having a collaborative, aggregated and integrated resource discovery and delivery framework[i] for UK Higher and Further Education.

The scoping study sought to elicit views from a wide range of stakeholder groups: which has revealed a wide range of views, sometimes opposing. Integrating the views of such a range of stakeholders with such diverse experience has been a challenging task.

A total of 80 respondents took part through interviews and online survey: 47 completing the online survey and 40 being interviewed (of which 7 were follow-ups to the online survey). Following the interviews and online survey period, a further 8 people who attended the UK Metadata Forum meeting at the Repository Fringe seminar 2010 participated in a break-out group which further explored the issues addressed during this consultation exercises.

The range of stakeholder groups and range of views was very diverse. In order to extend the consultation exercise of this 3 month study and verify the findings, feedback on this report is encouraged via this blog.

Go to the first section.
Go to the executive summary.

[i] Resource Discovery Taskforce Blog
Resource Discovery Taskforce Vision
(Note: all online reports and articles accessed 10 September 2010 unless stated otherwise.)