LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for METS Archives


METS Archives

METS Archives


METS@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

METS Home

METS Home

METS  November 2005

METS November 2005

Subject:

Use of multiple DMDs

From:

mfeltner <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:46:53 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (92 lines)

I am working on a small cultural heritage collection that features a few
scrapbooks and photo albums from the early to mid-1900s. This collection is
the first at our institution to utilize METS for complex objects. Given how
new we are to METS, we're still feeling out how to make best use of it -- as
well as cope with the limitations of our digital content management software.

For each scrapbook/album, I am creating METS records featuring two levels of
descriptive metadata: (1) a parent DMD for the object as a whole; and (2)
child DMDs for the many individual photos/drawings on the pages. Our grant
project is particularly fortunate to have a historian on board, which has
allowed us to create rich descriptive records for most individual photos in
albums and scrapbooks. Perhaps the most important feature of these records is
the identification of people in photos. These names are obviously best
captured in the child DMD for each photo, rather than the parent DMD.

I am curious how others working with similar materials are utilizing the many
descriptive metadata records within a single METS file. I would like to see
these records exploited to their fullest capacity for search and discovery,
but am unsure what would be the best scenario to make that happen. Our system
breaks METS objects into their many component objects. What this means for
resource discovery is that child objects as well as parent METS objects are
searched and retrieved. So a search that matches a child DMD will retrieve
that component image file and child DMD, as well as the entire METS object and
parent DMD. For those of you dealing with complex, image-based materials like
albums and scrapbooks, how are you allowing your many DMDs to be searched and
retrieved?

Given our specific software in mind, it looks as if our collection may have at
least three options:

1. Allow only parent DMDs to be searched/retrieved through resource discovery,
but allow child DMDs to be viewed as the user pages through the METS object as
a whole.

This kind of functionality might be possible if we can deactivate
search/retrieval of child DMDs in our software. According to this scenario,
the child DMDs would *not* function as *access* points, but could provide
additional information if a user finds a particular photo/drawing for which
he/she would like more detail. One particular problem this raises is the
inability/difficulty of finding photos of specific people that are located in
albums/scrapbooks through the search interface. For example, if one searches
Roosevelt and a scrapbook contains a picture of Roosevelt, but that name is
only captured in a child DMD, resource discovery will not retrieve that image
or scrapbook.

2. Allow both parent and child DMDs (and corresponding objects) to be searched
and retrieved.

This is the current functionality supported by our software. Using the
previous example of searching Roosevelt, this would result in both the
specific image of Roosevelt being retrieved (with this record indicating that
this child object is part of a particular scrapbook), as well as the scrapbook
as a whole. Even if the relationship to the parent is specified in the child
DMD, do you think this could be confusing for users?

3. Allow both parent and child DMDs to be searched, but retrieve only the
parent METS object.

Actually, I'm not even sure if this is possible in our software, but we can
always ask for enhancements, right?

Using the Roosevelt example again, this would result in the full scrapbook
being retrieved for this query. The parent DMD for the scrapbook, however,
mentions nothing of Roosevelt, so this might result in confusion/frustration
for the user. They might interpret this as a false hit or otherwise get tired
of paging through the scrapbook looking for a needle in a haystack, as it
were.

Unfortunately, our software does not include functionality that would allow
the scrapbook to be retrieved but opened to the particular page on which
Roosevelt is pictured. This, to me, would be the best option, as access to
the individual item would be preserved, but the item would also never be
viewed outside its original context within the scrapbook.

Any comments/feedback on these options would be greatly appreciated. Do any
of these three sound better/worse than the others? Can anyone think of
alternative scenarios that would better utilize our metadata and facilitate
access to important pieces of a whole?

Many thanks,
Melanie

--------------
Melanie Feltner-Reichert
Digital Coordinator
IMLS Funded Digital Collection:
"From Pi Beta Phi to Arrowmont"
John C. Hodges Library
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee
Email: [log in to unmask]

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

December 2021
November 2021
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
January 2016
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
January 2014
December 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
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
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
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager