Hi Will,
In Issue #1 of the Code4Lib Journal some of my colleagues here at 
Rutgers published an article on the "open sourcing" of our homegrown 
system, which may serve your purposes or at least serve as a starting 
point.  Anyway, here's the article:

http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/25

-Shaun Ellis

Will Sexton wrote:
> 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
>
>   


-- 
Shaun Ellis
Web Applications Programmer
Rutgers University Libraries
[log in to unmask]
732/445-5896