Australian Digital Collections: Metadata Standards and Interoperability

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    3 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    A questionnaire survey was emailed to various institutions in Australia hosting digital collections. Nineteen institutions, including libraries, museums, archives, and other bodies, responded to the survey, representing a wide range of digital resources. it was found that metadata format standards are more concentrated than might have been expected, whereas the reasons given for their selection vary considerably. The relationship between format and content standards is quite close; supplementary, in-house guidelines are prevalent, as are controlled vocabularies. Only a few institutions had added to their collections by importing other digital resources together with metadata. Most institutions are working towards interoperability in specific ways, but these ways vary in two important respects. First, some institutions focus on internal interoperability, while others emphasise cross- institutional development. Second, in terms of how to achieve interoperability, some institutions emphasise adherence to metadata standards, while other stress the way in which new technologies can work with divergent metadata formats and content. A graph of interoperability is constructed from the survey responses, reflecting these different positions.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)289-300
    Number of pages12
    JournalAustralian Academic and Research Libraries
    Volume35
    Issue number4
    Publication statusPublished - 2004

    Fingerprint

    resources
    museum
    new technology
    vocabulary
    questionnaire

    Cite this

    @article{6f48c796f9fe41e391909bdca5779be6,
    title = "Australian Digital Collections: Metadata Standards and Interoperability",
    abstract = "A questionnaire survey was emailed to various institutions in Australia hosting digital collections. Nineteen institutions, including libraries, museums, archives, and other bodies, responded to the survey, representing a wide range of digital resources. it was found that metadata format standards are more concentrated than might have been expected, whereas the reasons given for their selection vary considerably. The relationship between format and content standards is quite close; supplementary, in-house guidelines are prevalent, as are controlled vocabularies. Only a few institutions had added to their collections by importing other digital resources together with metadata. Most institutions are working towards interoperability in specific ways, but these ways vary in two important respects. First, some institutions focus on internal interoperability, while others emphasise cross- institutional development. Second, in terms of how to achieve interoperability, some institutions emphasise adherence to metadata standards, while other stress the way in which new technologies can work with divergent metadata formats and content. A graph of interoperability is constructed from the survey responses, reflecting these different positions.",
    author = "Philip Hider",
    note = "Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: Journal title (773t) = Australian Academic and Research Libraries. ISSNs: 0004-8623;",
    year = "2004",
    language = "English",
    volume = "35",
    pages = "289--300",
    journal = "Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association",
    issn = "2475-0158",
    publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
    number = "4",

    }

    Australian Digital Collections : Metadata Standards and Interoperability. / Hider, Philip.

    In: Australian Academic and Research Libraries, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2004, p. 289-300.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Australian Digital Collections

    T2 - Metadata Standards and Interoperability

    AU - Hider, Philip

    N1 - Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: Journal title (773t) = Australian Academic and Research Libraries. ISSNs: 0004-8623;

    PY - 2004

    Y1 - 2004

    N2 - A questionnaire survey was emailed to various institutions in Australia hosting digital collections. Nineteen institutions, including libraries, museums, archives, and other bodies, responded to the survey, representing a wide range of digital resources. it was found that metadata format standards are more concentrated than might have been expected, whereas the reasons given for their selection vary considerably. The relationship between format and content standards is quite close; supplementary, in-house guidelines are prevalent, as are controlled vocabularies. Only a few institutions had added to their collections by importing other digital resources together with metadata. Most institutions are working towards interoperability in specific ways, but these ways vary in two important respects. First, some institutions focus on internal interoperability, while others emphasise cross- institutional development. Second, in terms of how to achieve interoperability, some institutions emphasise adherence to metadata standards, while other stress the way in which new technologies can work with divergent metadata formats and content. A graph of interoperability is constructed from the survey responses, reflecting these different positions.

    AB - A questionnaire survey was emailed to various institutions in Australia hosting digital collections. Nineteen institutions, including libraries, museums, archives, and other bodies, responded to the survey, representing a wide range of digital resources. it was found that metadata format standards are more concentrated than might have been expected, whereas the reasons given for their selection vary considerably. The relationship between format and content standards is quite close; supplementary, in-house guidelines are prevalent, as are controlled vocabularies. Only a few institutions had added to their collections by importing other digital resources together with metadata. Most institutions are working towards interoperability in specific ways, but these ways vary in two important respects. First, some institutions focus on internal interoperability, while others emphasise cross- institutional development. Second, in terms of how to achieve interoperability, some institutions emphasise adherence to metadata standards, while other stress the way in which new technologies can work with divergent metadata formats and content. A graph of interoperability is constructed from the survey responses, reflecting these different positions.

    M3 - Article

    VL - 35

    SP - 289

    EP - 300

    JO - Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association

    JF - Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association

    SN - 2475-0158

    IS - 4

    ER -