 |
 |
In January of 2007 I sent a post to the Web4lib list titled "Metadata tools that scale." At Duke we were seeking opinions about a software platform to capture metadata for digital collections and finding databases. The responses to that inquiry suggested that what we were seeking didn't exist. About a year ago, an OCLC report on a survey of 18 member institutions, "RLG Programs Descriptive Metadata Practices Survey Results," supported that basic conclusion. When asked about the tools that they used to "create, edit and store metadata descrptions" of digital and physical resources, a sizable majority responded "customized" or "homegrown" tool. Since my initial inquiry, we launched a new installation of our digital collections at http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/. Yet we still lack a full-featured software platform for capturing descriptive metadata. We did our own informal survey of peer institutions building digital collections, which further reinforced that familiar conclusion -- there are lots of Excel spreadsheets, Access and FileMaker databases, etc., out there, but no available enterprise-level solution (and we're still happy to be wrong on this point). We also articulated a detailed series of specifications for a metadata tool. The library has committed to hiring two programmers each to a two-year appointment for producing a tool that meets these specs. I just posted on this list the job description, for which there are two openings. I have a longer version of this post on our digital collections blog (http://library.duke.edu/blogs/digital-collections/2008/10/10/a-metadata-tool-that-scales/), listing our specifications in more detail. But here are some of the basics: * Digitization: integrates with, or provides a module for, management of digitization workflow. * Description: supports a collections-based data model; flexible metadata schema (for us, the "Duke Core", derived from qualified Dublin Core); authority lists; cardinality and required-field constraints; metametadata (i.e., flagging, notations and status indicators for individual items); access control; simple and intuitive use. * Publication: exports METS documents as well as other common formats (CSV, etc.). * Asset Management: must be compatible with an asset management policy. While the Duke specifications are particular to our internal needs, I think we captured a lot of what makes the need for a full-featured metadata tool felt around the field. I have some ideas about how to go about implementing this set of specifications, but thought I'd see if the concept might spur discussion on CODE4LIB. How would you approach this project? Any thoughts on architecture, platform, data models, methodologies? Will -- Will Sexton Metadata Analyst / Programmer Duke University Libraries