Probably like many of you in the class, my process of learning about the world of metadata has been putting together puzzle pieces to form a big picture. I’m a “big picture” person and find it helpful to come up for air when surrounded by lots of detail (and lots of acronyms) to get an overview of a project.
First to lay out were some of the different metadata schemas—such as Dublin Core, MODS, VRA, CDWA, EAD—and the differences between them including their application in context of community need and required level of granularity. The schemas primarily inform the left side elements. These are the element sets.
Next to consider in piecing it together were the right side values. These can be standard or non-standard. Standard requires controlled vocabularies—such as AAT, LCTGM, LCSH, ULAN. The controlled vocabularies provide guides to choice of terms or words in data values.
Also needed are standards for the organization and formatting of the words in these data values. That’s where data content standards come in. Content standards are guidelines for data input. The CCO is an example of a data content standard.
We keep talking about XML with metadata. How does XML fit in? All of this metadata must be machine-readable. XML provides this aspect by encoding metadata for machine-readability, computer processing, and system exchange. XML needs to be defined by standards or DTDs such as MODS-XML, VRA-XML, or TEI.
This is referred to in the textbook as the fourfold typology of metadata standards:
- Structure (metadata element sets); examples: Dublin Core, VRA, MODS, CDWA, EAD
- Content (data content standards); example: CCO
- Value (data value standards with controlled vocabularies, thesauri); examples: AAT, ULAN, LCTGM
- Encoding and exchange (metadata for machine-readability); example: XML
When establishing the metadata element / value pairs, or statements, for a digital collection, there need to be written guidelines about what elements and values are required for the digital collection metadata and the rules of application. Now add metadata schema design to the picture—also known as metadata guidelines, metadata scheme documentation, best practice guides, or application profiles. We have examples for reference in the Indiana Memory Project DC Metadata Guide and the Access Pennsylvania Digital Repository Guidelines. This is our next step in the class project: creating a written set of guidelines for the application of our chosen elements and the values to be entered.
Michele Quinn 
This is an incredibly helpful post. The way you’ve broken down the different conceptual families and provided examples and uses of each is very informative, and has been a big help in trying to understand these ideas.
Well Done! Solid overview. Noticed some weak spots in my understanding of things that need to be buffed up. Thanks!
Thanks for the post. This does help clear things up a bit.
Agreed with everyone else that this is an incredibly helpful post. Thanks for breaking it down in easy-to-understand chunks!
I also agree with everyone. The way you explain the information is very helpful.
Indeed, I just posted a blog asking about this info. So thank you.
I’m so glad this post was helpful to others. It was helpful for my own understanding to break it down and write it out, although there is even more to the big picture of metadata I’m still grappling with! Thanks for the positive feedback.
Good post! I find these concepts to get a little mirky from time to time. The different standards are so closely related, its always good to review.
Pingback: Content Standards – I think I got it | an NFORMationist