Week 4 Reading Notes & Muddiest Point

Week 4 – Information Organization by Database, Metadata

This week’s readings were more geared toward libraries and archives. It was interesting to read the author’s point of view regarding libraries being at the forefront of metadata development. That’s a great position in which to be! The idea of museums utilizing the library systems like METS makes sense and opens opportunities to perfect and improve the existing systems. However, there is not a broad magic standard for all collections and materials. This is obvious, but important to note. Metadata applies to different records, collection methods, copyright or downgrade rights, etc. in different industries. The DCMES strives to identify a small group of elements which can be accessed and manipulated by any group to search many WWW information resources. One advantage is the interoperability of the system, but a drawback is that the records are limited in scope.

It was fun learning how to use Flickr and utilize the tag system for our photo collections. It is your own personal photo filing system. Zotero was very user-friendly and has many more capabilities that I would like to explore. I tried to choose tags that would be meaningful when I referred to my collection at a later date. I found that I needed to edit what I initially thought would work. I can see how user-generated metadata could dilute the interrelatedness of records. It was interesting to learn about the fluid nature of data versus metadata; that each can be one another’s data, depending upon the interdependency of systems and their information. The uses of metadata are thought-provoking; from the teacher wanting to “scaffold” student learning in order for them to build on prior knowledge to the digital information systems which provide global access to unique objects. I like the author’s correlation of metadata to the Rosetta Stone.

It was interesting to learn that the Dublin Core Data Model is based upon RDF and that it creates a universal system of properties and language for use in many resource definition groups. As one would surmise, its creation rose from a desire not to depend upon cultural understandings, which leads to confusion. Thus the schemas created were crucial to its success.

Muddiest Point:
How do you know when you need to use a more specific schema? Can it be customized for different audiences/readers?