A Theory of Metadata Enriching and Filtering
-
Getaneh Alemu
Abstract
This paper presents a new theory of metadata enriching and filtering. The theory emerged from a rigorous grounded theory data analysis of 57 in-depth interviews with metadata experts, library and information science researchers, librarians as well as academic library users (G. Alemu, A Theory of Digital Library Metadata: The Emergence of Enriching and Filtering, University of Portsmouth PhD thesis, Portsmouth, 2014). Partly due to the novelty of Web 2.0 approaches and mainly due to the absence of foundational theories to underpin socially constructed metadata approaches, this research adapted a social constructivist philosophical approach and a constructivist grounded theory method (K. Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis, SAGE Publications, London, 2006). The theory espouses the importance of enriching information objects with descriptions pertaining to the about-ness of information objects. Such richness and diversity of descriptions, it is argued, could chiefly be achieved by involving users in the metadata creation process. The theory includes four overarching metadata principles – metadata enriching, linking, openness and filtering. The theory proposes a mixed metadata approach where metadata experts provide the requisite basic descriptive metadata, structure and interoperability (a priori metadata) while users continually enrich it with their own interpretations (post-hoc metadata). Enriched metadata is inter- and cross-linked (the principle of linking), made openly accessible (the principle of openness) and presented (the principle of filtering) according to user needs.
It is argued that enriched, interlinked and open metadata effectively rises and scales to the challenges presented by the growing digital collections and changing user expectations. This metadata approach allows users to pro-actively engage in co-creating metadata, hence enhancing the findability, discoverability and subsequent usage of information resources. This paper concludes by indicating the current challenges and opportunities to implement the theory of metadata enriching and filtering.
Acknowledgment
This paper was awarded the De Gruyter Saur/IFLA Research Paper Award 2016.
References
Alemu, G. 2014. A Theory of Digital Library Metadata: The Emergence of Enriching and Filtering. Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth PhD thesis. Accessed March 10, 2016. http://eprints.port.ac.uk/15350.Suche in Google Scholar
Alemu, G., B. Stevens, P. Ross, and J. Chandler. 2012. “Linked Data for Libraries: Benefits of a Conceptual Shift from Library-Specific Record Structures to RDF-Based Data Models.” New Library World 113 (11/22):549–570.10.1108/03074801211282920Suche in Google Scholar
Alemu, G., B. Stevens, P. Ross, and J. Chandler. 2015. “The Use of a Constructivist Grounded Theory Method to Explore the Role of Socially-Constructed Metadata (Web 2.0) Approaches.” Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML) 4:517–540.Suche in Google Scholar
Alexander, B. 2006. “Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?” EDUCAUSE Review 42 (2):32–44.Suche in Google Scholar
Allemnag, D., and J. Hendler. 2008. Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist: Effective Modeling in RDFS and OWL. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann.Suche in Google Scholar
Barbosa, D. 2008. “Taxonomy Folksonomy Cookbook.” Accessed March 10, 2016. http://solutions.dowjones.com/cookbook/ebook_sla2008/cookbookebook.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
Berners-Lee, T., J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. 2001. “The Semantic Web: A New Form of Web Content that is Meaningful to Computers Will Unleash a Revolution of New Possibilities.” The Scientific American 284 (5):34–43.10.1038/scientificamerican0501-34Suche in Google Scholar
Buchanan, G., and D. McKay. 2011. “In the Bookshop: Examining Popular Search Strategies.” Paper presented at the JCDL-2011, 11th Annual International ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Ottawa, Canada.10.1145/1998076.1998127Suche in Google Scholar
Casey, M. E., and L. C. Savastinuk. 2006. “Web 2.0: Service for the Next-Generation Library.” Library Journal. Accessed March 10, 2016. http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html.Suche in Google Scholar
Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE Publications.Suche in Google Scholar
Coyle, K. 2010. “Library Data in a Modern Context.” Library Technology Reports 46 (1):5–13.Suche in Google Scholar
Denton, W. 2007. “FRBR and the History of Cataloging.” In Understanding FRBR: What It Is and How It Will Affect Our Retrieval, edited by A. G. Taylor, 35–57. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.Suche in Google Scholar
Evans, W. 2009. Building Library 3.0: Issues in Creating a Culture of Participation. Oxford: Chandos.10.1533/9781780631868Suche in Google Scholar
Keen, A. 2007. The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy. London: Nicholas Brealey, 2007.Suche in Google Scholar
Kroski, E. 2008. Web 2.0 for Librarians and Information Professionals. New York: Neal-Schuman.Suche in Google Scholar
Lagoze, C. 2010. Lost Identity: The Assimilation of Digital Libraries into the Web. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Information Science PhD thesis. Accessed March 10, 2016. http://www.cs.cornell.edu/lagoze/dissertation/CarlLagoze.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
Library of Congress. 2011. “A Bibliographic Framework for the Digital Age.” Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Accessed October 6, 2016. https://www.loc.gov/bibframe/news/framework-103111.html.Suche in Google Scholar
Lubetzky, S. 1953. “Development of Cataloguing Rules.” Library Trends 2 (2):179–186.Suche in Google Scholar
Marcum, D. B. 2005. “The Future of Cataloguing.” Paper presented at the Ebsco Leadership Seminar, Boston, Massachusetts. Accessed March 10, 2016. http://www.loc.gov/library/reports/CatalogingSpeech.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
Miller, P. 2005. “Web 2.0: Building the New Library.” Ariadne 45. Accessed March 10, 2016. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller.Suche in Google Scholar
Nilsson, M. 2010. From Interoperability to Harmonization in Metadata Standardization: Designing an Evolvable Framework for Metadata Harmonization. Stockholm: School of Computer Science and Communication, KTH, PhD thesis. Accessed March 10, 2016. http://kmr.nada.kth.se/papers/SemanticWeb/FromInteropToHarm-MikaelsThesis.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
NISO. 2004. “Understanding Metadata.” Accessed March 10, 2016. http://www.niso.org/publications/press/UnderstandingMetadata.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
O’Reilly, T. 2005. “What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software.” Accessed March 10, 2016. http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.Suche in Google Scholar
Sanders, S. 2015. “Linked Library Data: Making It Happen.” ExLibris Tech Blog. Accessed March 10, 2016. https://developers.exlibrisgroup.com/blog/Linked-Library-Data.Suche in Google Scholar
Shirky, C. 2005. “Ontology Is Overrated: Categories, Links, and Tags.” Clay Shirky’s Writings about the Internet. Accessed March 10, 2016. http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html.Suche in Google Scholar
Smith, G. 2008. Tagging: People-Powered Metadata for the Social Web. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.Suche in Google Scholar
Styles, R. 2009. “Bringing FRBR Down to Earth.” Accessed March 10, 2016. http://dynamicorange.com/2009/11/11/bringing-frbr-down-to-earth/.Suche in Google Scholar
Svenonius, E. 2000. The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3828.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Veltman, K. H. 2001. “Syntactic and Semantic Interoperability: New Approaches to Knowledge and the Semantic Web.” New Review of Information Networking 7 (1):159–183.10.1080/13614570109516975Suche in Google Scholar
W3C. 2011. “Library Linked Data Incubator Group Final Report: W3C.” Accessed March 10, 2016. https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/XGR-lld-20111025/.Suche in Google Scholar
Wallis, R. 2011a. “Library of Congress to Boldly Voyage To Linked Data Worlds.” Accessed March 10, 2016. http://consulting.talis.com/2011/11/library-of-congress-to-boldly-voyage-to-linked-data-worlds/.Suche in Google Scholar
Wallis, R. 2011b. “Will Europe’s National Libraries Open Data in an Open Way?” Accessed March 10, 2016. http://dataliberate.com/2011/09/will-europes-national-libraries-open-data-in-an-open-way/.Suche in Google Scholar
Weinberger, D. 2005. “Tagging and Why It Matters.” Accessed March 10, 2016. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/07-WhyTaggingMatters.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
Weinberger, D. 2007. Everything is Miscellaneous. New York: Times Books.Suche in Google Scholar
Wright, A. 2007. Glut: Mastering Information Through the Ages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Zeng, M. L., and J Qin. 2008. Metadata. London: Facet.Suche in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- A Theory of Metadata Enriching and Filtering
- A Study on Research Trends in Public Library Research in Korea Using Keyword Networks
- The Contribution of Effective Library and Information Services to Academic Achievements at Some Selected Universities in Ghana
- Information Needs in Prisons and Jails: A Discourse Analytic Approach
- The Economic Value of Book Loans – The Case of the Municipal Library of Prague
- Breathing Life into Rare Book Collections: The Digitization of the Taiga Skit Old Believers Library
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- A Theory of Metadata Enriching and Filtering
- A Study on Research Trends in Public Library Research in Korea Using Keyword Networks
- The Contribution of Effective Library and Information Services to Academic Achievements at Some Selected Universities in Ghana
- Information Needs in Prisons and Jails: A Discourse Analytic Approach
- The Economic Value of Book Loans – The Case of the Municipal Library of Prague
- Breathing Life into Rare Book Collections: The Digitization of the Taiga Skit Old Believers Library
