Go to:
Discussion
Online Doc
File
Poll
Event
Meeting Request
Picture
Jennifer Riley's picture

Notes from meeting at ALA Conference, 6/29/2013

Metadata Standards Committee

ALA Annual Meeting, Chicago

29 June 2013

 

Committee members present:

Éva Balcovac, Jenn Riley, Denise Bennett, Kevin Clair, Janet Lee-Smeltzer, Erik Mitchell, Bonnie Parks, Amy Rudersdorf, Jon Solomon

 

Our vision:

Continuing with our preference to establish goals with high and quick impact

a) Roadmap to Metadata: visualization tools, relationships, etc.

b) How do we fit with other groups, e.g. MARC Transition Interest Group, 

c) define our role as:

education, advocacy, outreach

interpretive layer

develop/publicize case studies, core competencies, best practices

 

Our charge still carries a component of bibliographic data, but what topics should we tackle? BibFrame is LC, not ALA; we're not positioned to move quickly; they’re not having enough open discussion -- so what could be our role? 

Options for the education/advocacy/outreach function include:

1) How to get from MARC to linked data?  A visualization (such as spaghetti in a bucket); other ways to facilitate the transition.  Advocate for using new fields even if your local system doesn't support them yet.  Encourage the coding of relationships and attributes.  Many catalogers see the workload but not the added benefits, so we can educate on the future value and encourage folks to not lose sight of the benefit, which is the impact on the users in finding, identifying, and discovering.

2) Library as Publisher: reusability, linking metadata to get content to user

3) Linked data, as embodied by schema.org.  Illustrate with case studies, mappings.  

4) Applying RDA beyond the catalog; incorporating RDA into non-metadata felids, such as the 3xx.

5) Helping develop a mental model of interactions: where components begin and end, letting the pieces play together, interacting and connecting the modularities.

6) Poll or survey librarian to identify their biggest concerns.

7) Don't forget the technology impact -- we can't separate standards from the technology at our disposal.  Include digital content, ILS, etc.

 

Impact:

1) Could the committee facilitate individuals becoming involved in relevant standards development and implementation?

2) Or would it be more effective for committee members to state our role (even if modestly in our sigs) since participating as part of the group might have more impact.

3) ALA Committees may serve as liaisons to other groups (as opposed to “members”) without needing higher approval.  

 

The ALCTS Standards Task Force report includes a list of relevant standards, so we don't need to reinvent.

 

Next steps:  

Midwinter: invite PCC Chair to our meeting

 

Sponsor a joint ALCTS/LITA program next Annual

Speakers could focus on:

a) Schema.org, including LODLAM implementers

b) librarians involved in linked data (W3C):  who's exposing, who's using, what's happening

If not accepted, we could try the Joint ALA/SAA/AAM Committee on Archives, Libraries and Museums (CALM)