Metadata Collections & QA

Proposed policy changes, rationale, transition plan

Current policies (hi)

Updated policies (changes highlighted in red)

Rationale

Transition Plan

Accessioning, Deaccessioning and Community Feedback Diagrams

Placement of proposed polices within existing policies

This section shows action taken on each proposed policy change. The actions include:

  • determine if the proposed policy change is in an existing policy, if so strengthen the existing policy language
  • add the proposed policy change to an existing policy
  • per the Management Council do not put the proposed policy change in any existing policy
  • determine if the proposed policy change is procedural and fits in an existing procedural/process document like the Collections Management Process, Vocabulary Management Process or Library-UI Development documents; if it exists as a procedure strengthen the language in the procedure; if not, add if appropriate

Please note that collection policies are the DLESE Accessioning and Deaccessioning and DLESE Scope and Policy Statement. Collection guideline documents are interpretations of the two policies so that collection builders and anyone who needs to apply the policies can do so in a consistent manner.

From the original RESOURCES document during the 1st week of Jan.:

  • Proposed policy 1.A (now 1.A) : rewritten per the MC call on 1-5-05; the idea of acknowledging resource creators has been put in an updated DLESE Accessioning and Deaccessioning Policy with the following text: Resource providers and DLESE work to together to:
    • Perform a quality review in the areas of scientific content and accuracy, pedagogy (if appropriate) and metadata quality
    • Acknowledge resource creators (if different than resource provider) and invite resource creators to participate in access
  • Proposed policy 1.B: dropped as a policy per the MC call on 1-5-05 because current documents (Resource Quality and Metadata Quality) already have this information; however, the language for it in the Metadata Quality Guidelines was strengthened to read as follows:
    • Acronyms and abbreviations are spelled out, particularly in descriptions, titles and resource creator information
    • Resource creator information is sufficient in order to identify the origin of the materials
  • Proposed policy 1.C (now 1.B): rewritten per the MC call on 1-5-05; the idea of reviewing all resources has been put in an updated DLESE Accessioning and Deaccessioning Policy with the following text: Resource providers and DLESE work to together to:
    • Perform a quality review in the areas of scientific content and accuracy, pedagogy (if appropriate) and metadata quality
    • Acknowledge resource creators (if different than resource provider) and invite resource creators to participate in access
  • Proposed policy 1.D: dropped per the MC call on 1-5-05; this idea does not appear in any updated collection policy or guideline documents because the Executive Director is currently pursuing this activity
  • Proposed policy 1.E (now 1.C): rewritten per MC call on 1-13-05; Now says something along the lines of all resources are accessioning per the DLESE Accessioning and Deaccessioning Policy. The concept of premier resources was added to the new DLESE Accessioning and Deaccessioning Policy (above) and a draft Premier Quality Guidelines was created but needs to be fleshed out.
  • Proposed policy 1.F (now 1.D) : dropped per MC call on 1-12-05; in the main DLESE menu buttons, there is a For Developer area already so not really a policy statement but this idea is part of the DLESE Community Plan. Maybe under the For Developers areas or the swikis could have some emphasis on a work area. Additionally, reference to a work area has been made in the new Resource Quality Guidelines under item number 4 with the following text: 'Resources that are still under construction and others that do not meet this criterion may be more appropriate for work or developmental areas of the library.'
  • Proposed policy 1.G (now 1.E): discussed in the MC call on 1-13-05; community feedback is part of the scope of DLESE. The idea of community feedback has been added to an updated DLESE Scope and Policy Statement with the following text: 'Community volunteered reviews of DLESE resources are highly valued and encouraged in building and evaluating the library. Such reviews contribute to the quality of the library and provide additional information into and after formal reviews.'
  • Proposed policy 1.H (now 1.F): discussed in the MC call on 1-13-05; the idea of recognition has been incorporated into the DLESE Accessioning and Deaccessioning Policy with the following text: 'For recognition of their excellence, all accessioned resources are given the status of a formal publication.' A implementation of this is to use the existing tuple metadata framework (called the objects framework at the moment). Collections and resources using this framework are name-value pairs like FAQs, glossary term. The idea of an single ID number being associated with a resource URL is another implementation of the tuple (objects) metadata framework.
  • Proposed policy 1.I: moved per MC call on 1-13-05; the development of data accessioning criteria is not a policy statement; the actual criteria themselves is the policy statement; a placeholder for data criteria has been incoporated into an updated DLESE Accessioning and Deaccessioning Policy and the idea of developing data criteria is now a recommended procedure.

 

From the original METADATA document during the first week of January:

  • Proposed policy 2.A (now2.A): discussed per MC call 1-12-05: DLESE vocabularies are metadata framework development issue. The text as written applies only to the ADN framework causing confusion as to whether these ideas apply to the other DLESE metadata frameworks. There is an extensive Vocabulary Management Process document on the metadata web site in which this idea of vocabulary development has been strengthen with the followoing text: 'Vocabularies should be as simple as possible while meeting user needs, promoting naturalness of language and being informed by research on user behaviors and digital library development.'
  • Proposed policy 2.B (now 2.B): discussed per MC call 1-12-05: policy changed to: The library will include and Earth system vocabulary and the operation that explicates the library scope and balance. These library capabilities should ensure high quality and consistency in accessioning, cataloging, metadata, interoperability and the user experience. This has been added to the Vocabulary Management Process document with the following text: 'An ongoing DLESE vocabulary development issue has been implementing a well-defined Earth system vocabulary. The library will include an Earth system vocabulary and the operational framework that explicates the library scope and balance. These library capabilities should ensure high quality and consistency in accessioning, cataloging, metadata, interoperability and the user experience.'. What this refers to is getting something in the metadata. Since some resources are news items, tools (data or pedagogical), the following text has been added to the Metadata Quality Guidelines: 'Metadata descriptions appropriately emphasize the Earth systems information, processes and concepts.'
  • Proposed policy 2.C: dropped into procedures per MC call 1-12-05: There is already a policy/guideline for metadata quality approved by the Steering Committee in 2004. Saying how something is developed is not policy because it can change radically over time and with new technologies. Also, it is the domain of collections builders to generate metadata as they see fit; however, DLESE can encourage multiple and hybrid approaches. We all know that automated classification will be of assistance (its implementation).
  • New Proposed policy 2.C: added per MC call 1-12-05: The policy is: DLESE have consistent, high-quality metadata produced in a time-efficient manner and by cost-effective methods. The idea has been added to the Metadata Quality Guidelines with the following text: 'It is very important that DLESE have consistent, high-quality metadata produced in a time-efficient manner and by cost-effective methods. This is a requirement and ensures records that are effective and efficient to support library services.'

Top

Last updated: 1-13-05