1,429
Views
22
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Part II: Repository Management and Case Studies

Repository Metadata: Approaches and Challenges

, &
Pages 309-325
Received 01 Aug 2008
Accepted 01 Oct 2008
Published online: 03 Apr 2009
 

Many institutional repositories have pursued a mixed metadata environment, relying on description by multiple workflows. Strategies may include metadata converted from other systems, metadata elicited from the document creator or manager, and metadata created by library or repository staff. Additional editing or proofing may or may not occur. The mixed environment brings challenges of creation, management, and access. In this article, repository efforts at three major universities are discussed. All three repositories run on the DSpace software package, and the opportunities and limitations of that system will be examined. The authors discuss local strategies in light of current thinking on metadata creation, user behavior, and the aggregation of heterogeneous metadata. The contrasts between the mission of each repository effort will show the importance of local customization, while the experience of all three institutions forms the basis for recommendations on strategies of benefit to a wide range of librarians and repository planners.

Notes

1. Clifford A. Lynch, “Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for Scholarship in the Digital Age,” ARL: A Bimonthly Report 226 (2003), http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/br/br226/br226ir.shtml.

2. OpenDOAR, “Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR),” OpenDOAR, http://www.opendoar.org/.

3. Raym Crow, The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper (Washington, D.C.: SPARC, 2002), http://www.arl.org/sparc/bm%7Edoc/ir_final_release_102.pdf.

4. Cat S. McDowell, “Evaluating Institutional Repository Deployment in American Academe Since Early 2005: Repositories by the Numbers, Part 2,” D-Lib Magazine 13, no. 9/10 (2007), http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september07/mcdowell/09mcdowell.html.

5. DSpace Foundation. “DSpace FAQ,” DSpace Foundation, http://www.dspace.org/index.php/FAQs/.

6. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative Libraries Working Group, “DC-Library Application Profile,” Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, http://dublincore.org/documents/library-application-profile/.

7. University of Minnesota Department of Applied Economics and Libraries, “AgEcon Search: Research in Agricultural and Applied Economics,” University of Minnesota, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu.

8. University of Minnesota Libraries and Office of Information Technology, “University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy,” University of Minnesota, http://conservancy.umn.edu.

9. University of Minnesota Libraries, “Transforming Scholarly Communication,” University of Minnesota, http://www.lib.umn.edu/scholcom/.

10. Institute for Mathematics and Its Applications, “Institute for Mathematics and Its Applications,” University of Minnesota, http://ima.umn.edu.

11. Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship, “IDEALS Resources and Information,” University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, http://services.ideals.uiuc.edu/wiki/.

12. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative Usage Board, “DCMI Metadata Terms,” Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/.

13. Timothy G. Donohue, “Configurable Submission System for DSpace” (paper presented at the annual Open Repositories conference, San Antonio, TX, January 23, 2007).

Reprints and Permissions

Please note: We are unable to provide a copy of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or commercial or derivative permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below.

Permission can also be obtained via Rightslink. For more information please visit our Permissions help page.