My Metadata Mini-Manifesto
How do we approach the problem of metadata (and which formats we should use)? In what way is metadata like cataloging and in what way is it different? What is metadata anyway?
I see metadata as cataloging. Libraries have a strong historical tradition of organizing materials. I think it is fair to say that the way we’ve done this has changed over time with the emergence of new technologies. There are at least two questions that should, in my opinion, guide us in participating in the process of evolving our cataloging: “How do we continue to do what is appropriate and right (contextually speaking)” and “How do we adjust what we do to fit our changing environment (e.g., to take advantage of new perspectives)?”
I see metadata as cataloging; It is what cataloging is becoming. It is the same thing, and yet we give it a different label because we need to adjust our perception of it… just enough so that we can question it. We need to distance ourselves from it… just enough to look at it differently, make judgments about it, and then reintegrate our new perspective into our work. It is at this point, I believe, that “metadata” becomes “cataloging” again… the need for a different label is gone – until the process begins anew.
The same is true of the “digital library” — what is a digital library? Isn’t a digital library the same thing as a traditional library? In a way, I think, it is a trick we play on ourselves to allow us to question some of our basic assumptions, make some discoveries (and mistakes), and then integrate what we’ve learned. At that point, the “digital library” disappears and there is just “the library” (we may even look back and think, “Wasn’t it there all along? It sure seems like we were doing library work.”)
I believe a key question when looking at metadata formats from the digital materials community is, “How do libraries differ from other institutions of cultural knowledge?” For instance, are there similarities between libraries and other institutions of cultural knowledge on which we could be building? How similar are our missions or should the differences between our materials be the determining factor? What role would a unified authorities system play across a diverse material environment?
Ultimately, I think we should make metadata decisions based on the context of the digital materials community (and the materials that we are digitizing). It isn’t that digital materials are somehow fundamentally different from their physical counterparts or that a different level of description is required. The decision is made to foster an environment where people working towards the same goal can share ideas, tools, and realizations.
The purpose of metadata is to ask the questions; when we understand the answers, I believe, we’ll realize we’ve been cataloging all along (but we have to ask the questions to truly understand the realization). We could liken the question of whether metadata is cataloging to the Zen parable:
“Thirty years ago, before I had studied Zen, I saw mountains as mountains and rivers as rivers. And then later, when I had more intimate knowledge, I came to see mountains not as mountains and rivers not as rivers. But now that I have attained the substance, I again see mountains just as mountains, and rivers just as rivers.”
All this is sort of the philosophical underpinnings of a viewpoint. It is a different thing to implement this perspective as a way forward, I know. For instance, libraries have large numbers of catalogers who are trained to catalog. It may or may not be interesting to them to look at what they do from a broader perspective (though it should be, because what they do is interesting from the micro and macro views).
Pragmatically, I’d suggest librarians start with MODS and MADS. It is the most similar to what they already do so won’t seem like such a stretch. Get comfortable with it. Look at what moving the information around a little does to the overall organization (in comparison to what it would look like in MARC record). Look at what is added to and left out from the MARC.
It is important, though, not to stop there. After all, the Library of Congress is not advocating that people stop using MARC in favor of MODS. MODS and MADS are just one set of (possible) answers.
To truly investigate the question of evolving cataloging we need to look from a variety of perspectives. If MODS and MADS is as far as one wants to question, I think it makes more sense to just stick with MARC. MARC is more granular than MODS/MADS and, though it has its fair share of organizational problems (even related to its level of granularity), it is certainly well understood by a select group of trained professionals (you know who you are).
To work with metadata (in the sense I’ve been discussing here), one should look at other metadata formats… EAD, TEI, Dublin Core, VRA Core, and even XOBIS! Look at similarities and differences. Discover why decisions were made when the authors created the schema (for instance, were they made based on the material in hand, because of traditions within the community, or to satisfy perceived user needs?)
The goal of working with metadata shouldn’t be to make a definitive and final decision about which format a library should use, but to be open to evaluating and re-evaluating the strengths and weaknesses, uses and user communities, and even the cataloging communities from which the metadata comes. It is important to be pragmatic… not to overwhelm yourself with more than you can digest at a time, but when you have new projects (or have time to investigate) take a look at other metadata formats. You might like what you see.
Leave a Reply