LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  May 2005

ARSCLIST May 2005

Subject:

Re: MIC and cataloguing

From:

Jane Johnson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 20 May 2005 15:05:45 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (96 lines)

George:

I'm not sure if you're talking about the mapping of the actual data elements (i.e., the fields, such as title, date, contents), or mapping the definitions of the actual data *content,* such as a subject descriptor, but allow me to address both.  Please see my comments below.  

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Jane D. Johnson
MIC Project Manager
Library of Congress 
[log in to unmask] 
(202) 707-5903
(732) 445-5904
(732) 445-5888 (fax)

Visiting Scholar
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

MIC: Moving Image Collections
A Library of Congress-AMIA Collaboration
http://mic.loc.gov
>>> [log in to unmask] 05/19/05 6:40 PM >>>
From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad

Jane Johnson gave us a magnificient overview of a universal and very flexible
database structure that it is proposed to implement.

Here I have picked on a very important paragraph, important, because it
contains a statement that spells trouble if nobody uniforms terminology.

----- the paragraph is:

The only criteria for Union Catalog participation are 1) machine-readable
records and 2) an entry in the MIC Archive Directory, because the Directory
and the Union Catalog databases are linked.  (A key innovation of MIC is to
integrate the Archive Directory and the Union Catalog so that information
about obtaining an organization's resources is displayed right alongside the
bibliographic record supplied by that organization.) The organization (or
individual) submits an application, sample records and field list, then MIC
populates an online form with this data so that the organization can name MIC
data element equivalents for its own fields.  This utility will allow small
under-supported archives--and individuals--with very little metadata
expertise to share their records with a much broader audience, while enabling
large archives to integrate multiple metadata schema into a single system.

----- and the statement that I shall discuss briefly is:

The organization (or
individual) submits an application, sample records and field list, then MIC
populates an online form with this data so that the organization can name MIC
data element equivalents for its own fields.

----- The key term here is "MIC data element equivalents". What if there is
no equivalent, or if there is only a partial overlap between the type of
content in the organization's hierarchy and definitions and the definition of
a particular MIC data element?

____________________________________________________________
In this initial stage of its development, MIC is a tool for discovery, rather than collection management.  Therefore we have included in the MIC core registry all of the data elements essential for discovery (i.e. descriptive metadata: title, date, summary, credits, etc.).  We have mapped to a number of metadata schema, both standard and in-house, and are confident that the MIC core data registry supports the four user tasks defined in IFLA's "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records": to find, identify, select, and obtain.  (Cf. http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm.)  The MIC mapping utility also provides tremendous flexibility by allowing organizations to separate multiple values in a single data element and to concatenate (chain together) two or more fields from their schema, then map the combination to a single MIC field.  In other words, we don't require a one-to-one match of data elements.  MIC's is a very rich schema, so most everything which is essential -will- map.  Most of what doesn't map tends to be local or non-public, and/or falls in the category of administrative or rights metadata.  MIC's incorporation of additional and effectively structured administrative, rights, and technical metadata will come in our next development phase, when we develop a METS-compliant cataloging utility that will enable the creation and collection of the range of metadata needed to manage, preserve and provide access to moving images.  (METS is the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard; cf. http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/).
___________________________________________________________

If a search is made, then all of those items that appear, which upon scrutiny
are not as expected, must be regarded as false drops or noise. So, in the
metadata (comment field) concerning a descriptor, there must be an
authorization code. That way a searcher can limit the search to an authority
that he trusts. 

_____________________________________________________
I agree with you completely that precision in retrieval is dependent on a controlled vocabulary with syndetic structure, preferably one constructed according to national or international standards.  (Note there is a prominent link to an original white paper on precisely this topic on the Cataloging & Metadata portal home page (http://mic.imtc.gatech.edu/catalogers_portal/cat_index.htm), which in turn links to lists of controlled vocabulary standards and resources.)  While we at MIC consider authority control critical to effective retrieval, we have not yet tackled these issues for our Union Catalog.  Because we are simultaneously addressing a number of goals and integrating multiple technologies to create a full-fledged union catalog with mapping utility, cataloging utility, linked directories, and informational resources, we knew from the beginning that a phased implementation would be required.  Authority control could not be included in this first phase.  That said, we continue to consider a number of approaches to an authority implementation, knowing that the more records we have in the catalog, the more effectively we can test the implementation.  There is some very interesting work being done internationally in this area, which Rutgers University Libraries, our lead developer, is already looking to implement in similar projects.  
_______________________________________________________________


Or else, if the searcher has had good experiences searching a
particular individual's database, he should be able to limit the search to
that.
________________________________________________________________
One of MIC's nice features is that it allows users to limit union catalog searches to a particular organization's (or individual's) records.  Further, it links MIC Archive Directory data to the Union Catalog bibliographic record display, so that users can readily go from a MIC record to information on how to obtain or view the resource.  The MIC Archive Directory entry also includes a link to the organization's *catalog* as well as to its home page.  Thus the user can choose to search an organization's or individual's complete records at its own site, using its own local system.
__________________________________________________________________

All of this is really best done by means of a thesaurus structure (controlled
vocabulary). Time invested in creating a full set of authorized descriptors
and maintaining it is to the good of all, but obviously to the cost of those
who do the work. In a previous posting I have lamented that with the
appearance of fast hard drives, the perceived need for thesauri disappeared -
sequential sorting being resorted to. But really, it is the only way of
mastering a field and obtaining precision in retrieval. Just think of the
fact that anything misspelt in the wrong place of a word will not be
retrieved using the correct form of that word. Certain misspellings may
sometimes still be caught by truncation. Again here, terms from a controlled
vocabulary would increase precision.

_____________________________________________________________
Well said!

All best,

Jane

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager