Table of Contents
Comments
Commenters1
Why share content? Sharing brings together distributed collections, supports one-stop searching, benefits users and increases the exposure of collections. Lorcan Dempsey [i] uses the phrase ‘in the flow’ to describe how to get content ‘out’ into the world where users will find it.
Why share content? Sharing brings together distributed collections, supports one-stop searching, benefits users and increases the exposure of collections. Lorcan Dempsey [i] uses the phrase ‘in the flow’ to describe how to get content ‘out’ into the world where users will find it.2
There are two main ways to share metadata: federated search and metadata aggregation. In the federated search model in which a user searches from a single central location, the query is sent to distributed databases and the results are sent back to the central query source to assemble, or render, the results. Z39.50 and Search/Retrieval via URL (SRU) are examples of standards used in federated searches.
There are two main ways to share metadata: federated search and metadata aggregation. In the federated search model in which a user searches from a single central location, the query is sent to distributed databases and the results are sent back to the central query source to assemble, or render, the results. Z39.50 and Search/Retrieval via URL (SRU) are examples of standards used in federated searches.3
Alternatively, the metadata aggregation model pulls metadata from many sources into a single location. Search engines, union catalogues, OAI-PMH, RSS and ATOM [ii] do this . It provides an opportunity to enrich and standardise the metadata. Once users discover a resource they are usually redirected to the original source of the item.
Alternatively, the metadata aggregation model pulls metadata from many sources into a single location. Search engines, union catalogues, OAI-PMH, RSS and ATOM [ii] do this . It provides an opportunity to enrich and standardise the metadata. Once users discover a resource they are usually redirected to the original source of the item.4
In a recent book about social media and content, Blossom (2009) states that the aggregation business model is only getting stronger with the popularity of social media and social networks. We are moving toward ‘highly focussed aggregation of content for very specific audiences….’
In a recent book about social media and content, Blossom (2009) states that the aggregation business model is only getting stronger with the popularity of social media and social networks. We are moving toward ‘highly focussed aggregation of content for very specific audiences….’5
Swann and Awre (2006), having described a proposed aggregation model for facilitating end-user services across repositories, then outlined how the aggregation model meets the needs of the respective user-groups identified in their research. This table is reproduced here with permission as it is a useful summary, encompassing the stakeholders mentioned elsewhere in this scoping study.
Swann and Awre (2006), having described a proposed aggregation model for facilitating end-user services across repositories, then outlined how the aggregation model meets the needs of the respective user-groups identified in their research. This table is reproduced here with permission as it is a useful summary, encompassing the stakeholders mentioned elsewhere in this scoping study.6
| User Group | Benefits of aggregation model |
| For repository managers (service providers): |
|
| For end-users as readers and searchers: |
|
| End users as content providers: |
|
| Content aggregators |
|
| Meta-users: |
|
| Entrepreneurs: |
|
7
Further benefits to aggregating metadata for learners and teachers, outlined by Pitts and Sharp (2003), include:
Further benefits to aggregating metadata for learners and teachers, outlined by Pitts and Sharp (2003), include:8
- New ways to access information to enhance learning and teaching.
- That resources relevant to a topic can be categorised by the type of resource.
- Multiple routes through a resource can be tailored to a students’ preferred learning style.
9
Shreeves and Kirkham (2004) described some of the experiences of tutors using an aggregation of metadata delivered through a portal: ‘The testers generally agreed that the UIUC portal was useful for pre-screening collections of digitized resources and providing both collection descriptions and links. They stated that this vetting of available sites saved them time and effort and enabled them to look for primary source materials in context-specific, specialized collections, increasing the chance that they might find useable items’.
Shreeves and Kirkham (2004) described some of the experiences of tutors using an aggregation of metadata delivered through a portal: ‘The testers generally agreed that the UIUC portal was useful for pre-screening collections of digitized resources and providing both collection descriptions and links. They stated that this vetting of available sites saved them time and effort and enabled them to look for primary source materials in context-specific, specialized collections, increasing the chance that they might find useable items’.10
Further argument for aggregating metadata of image and audio-visual collections comes from the pressing need for preservation. The Tracking the Reel World (2008) survey concluded: ‘This survey makes overwhelmingly clear that there is a huge amount of valuable audiovisual material spread over a large number of institutions that are at the moment not in the best position to guarantee long-term access and preservation’.
Further argument for aggregating metadata of image and audio-visual collections comes from the pressing need for preservation. The Tracking the Reel World (2008) survey concluded: ‘This survey makes overwhelmingly clear that there is a huge amount of valuable audiovisual material spread over a large number of institutions that are at the moment not in the best position to guarantee long-term access and preservation’.11
The survey went on to state: ‘The conditions under which analogue recordings are kept are often not adequate, and lack of resources, equipment and expertise make it a giant step for mixed-media institutions with small minority collections to move them into the digital domain…
The survey went on to state: ‘The conditions under which analogue recordings are kept are often not adequate, and lack of resources, equipment and expertise make it a giant step for mixed-media institutions with small minority collections to move them into the digital domain…12
The interest in sound and moving image materials has turned out to be immense now that they can be accessed easily, and there is every reason why audiovisual materials in small mixed-media collections should be high on the list of candidates for digitization. However, the institutions that hold them cannot be expected to carry out this task on their own…’
The interest in sound and moving image materials has turned out to be immense now that they can be accessed easily, and there is every reason why audiovisual materials in small mixed-media collections should be high on the list of candidates for digitization. However, the institutions that hold them cannot be expected to carry out this task on their own…’13
Tracking the Reel World identified 0.9 million hours of film, 9.4 million hours of audio, and 10.5 million hours of video, the majority of which is concentrated in a handful of extremely large collections (national audiovisual archives, broadcasters, deposit libraries). However, many of the collections also recorded in the survey were small or very small; their results show that about 65% of film and around 40% of audio and video collections consist of no more than 500 hours of materials.
Tracking the Reel World identified 0.9 million hours of film, 9.4 million hours of audio, and 10.5 million hours of video, the majority of which is concentrated in a handful of extremely large collections (national audiovisual archives, broadcasters, deposit libraries). However, many of the collections also recorded in the survey were small or very small; their results show that about 65% of film and around 40% of audio and video collections consist of no more than 500 hours of materials.15
Little has been written on how users interact with collections of aggregated metadata. However, several studies have investigated the challenges of aggregating metadata for both internal processes and end-users. Liu et al. (2002) documented the problems of heterogeneous metadata in the ARC cross archive searching service. They suggested that through a series of interactions with subject terms culled from harvested collections, a user could select the appropriate collections in which to search. Arms et al. (2002) and Shreeves et al. (2003) noted how variations in metadata authoring practices and consistency of metadata records challenge service providers’ abilities to build consistently searchable systems. Issues mentioned by these authors included the variation in elements and vocabularies used and the depth of description.
Little has been written on how users interact with collections of aggregated metadata. However, several studies have investigated the challenges of aggregating metadata for both internal processes and end-users. Liu et al. (2002) documented the problems of heterogeneous metadata in the ARC cross archive searching service. They suggested that through a series of interactions with subject terms culled from harvested collections, a user could select the appropriate collections in which to search. Arms et al. (2002) and Shreeves et al. (2003) noted how variations in metadata authoring practices and consistency of metadata records challenge service providers’ abilities to build consistently searchable systems. Issues mentioned by these authors included the variation in elements and vocabularies used and the depth of description.17
“the online aggregation of book metadata brought about by centralized Internet bookselling was a boon for publishers, who saw an unprecedented surge in sales of the backlist titles that they no longer promoted through established channels; it was equally an advantage for scholars seeking out those obscure backlist titles. Readers, for the first time, had at their disposal an easy way to search across a comprehensive, cross-publisher database of available books and complete a purchase. The digital medium has made published information easier to disseminate, search, and sell, and metadata plays a critical role in these advantages.”[iii]
“the online aggregation of book metadata brought about by centralized Internet bookselling was a boon for publishers, who saw an unprecedented surge in sales of the backlist titles that they no longer promoted through established channels; it was equally an advantage for scholars seeking out those obscure backlist titles. Readers, for the first time, had at their disposal an easy way to search across a comprehensive, cross-publisher database of available books and complete a purchase. The digital medium has made published information easier to disseminate, search, and sell, and metadata plays a critical role in these advantages.”[iii] 18
[i] http://orweblog.oclc.org/archives/000688.html
[ii] See standards section of this appendix for more detail on these standards
[iii] http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Metadata_Demystified.pdf
[i] http://orweblog.oclc.org/archives/000688.html[ii] See standards section of this appendix for more detail on these standards
[iii] http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/Metadata_Demystified.pdf