8 Conclusions [i]


Cite Permalink:
1
An aggregation of metadata about images and time-based media is useful, only if the purpose and use is clear. This study describes a number of possible uses that indicate the purpose of such an aggregation thus suggesting it is desirable that these metadata be aggregated. It is also inherently valuable to have digital metadata to enable discoverability of related physical resources.
Cite Permalink:
2
There is a general willingness to contribute to an aggregation of metadata about images and time-based media, but the overheads for doing so must be kept to a minimum, with support available when required, and as long as the barriers identified in this scoping study are addressed.
Cite Permalink:
3
To generate potential service provider interest in the aggregation, it may be practical, at least initially, for such an aggregation to focus on aggregating metadata from smaller or lesser-known collections with clear licence terms that are not readily visible to search engines. This would need to be balanced with achieving a sufficient amount of metadata to encourage use.
Cite Permalink:
4
Use of descriptions and language that address specific audiences, avoid jargon and thus are easy to understand may be important. For example, a collection owner may not understand the benefits of the semantic web in simple terms in this context, but may more easily grasp that they could increase linkage to their website.
Cite Permalink:
5
Further conclusions are grouped into sections on subsequent posts.
Cite Permalink:
6
8.1 Metadata
Cite Permalink:
7
8.2 Metadata Contributors
Cite Permalink:
8
8.3 Metadata Aggregation Model
Cite Permalink:
9
8.4 Aggregated Metadata Consumers
Cite Permalink:
10
[i]It seems that when discussing an aggregation of metadata about images and time-based media, interviewees and respondents to the online questionnaire often confused the metadata with the content. This is perhaps an easy distinction to miss in a world characterised by services providing streamlined access to content via search results (e.g. Google). During the interviews the distinction between metadata that describe a digital resource and the resource itself could be clarified by the interviewer during the discussion. Similarly the distinction between services built on an aggregation and the metadata aggregation itself was clarified during discussions, particularly in relation to search services. In some instances, it appeared that respondents to the questionnaire lost those distinctions and, as there was no interviewer present, this was not clarified. Thus, the interview findings might be more robust than those of the online questionnaire. A number of respondents also stated that their view was not necessarily those of their organisation.

Total comments on this page:

Comments are closed.