Schottlaender, B. E. C. (2003). Why Metadata? Why Me? Why Now? Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 36(3/4):19-29.
The main points of Schottlaender’s article are to provide an overview of metadata, examine why metadata issues are central to discussions regarding the evolution of library services especially digital ones and why the cataloging community is and should be front and center in these discussions. Through out the article Schottlaender examines the three questions that he poses in the article’s title. Why Metadata? Why Me? Why Now?
Why Metadata?
Clifford Lynch’s definition is regarded as one of the best by the Task Force on Metadata.
“A cloud of collateral information around a data object.”
The Task Force on Metadata also created their own definition pulling portions from the various definitions they encountered.
“Metadata is structured, encoded data that describe characteristics of information-bearing entities to aid in the identification, discovery, assessment and management of the described entities.”
A word that is heard a lot in the metadata community is “schema”. Murtha Baca’s definition is, “A set of rules for encoding information that supports specific communities of users.”
Schottlaender goes on to talk about the three types of Schemas: Encoding, Metadata and Architectural. He then goes into further detail about four of the Encoding Schema: MARC, SGML, HTML and XML.
Why Me?
Schottlaender states:
“Why should catalogers be in the forefront of metadata development? Metadata is about access. Cataloging is about access. Cataloging describes content and content relationships. Kevin Butterfield talks about cataloging as the invisible process of order-making and goes on to state that the Internet could use some order-making.”
A co-author in the Task Force Report John Attig states that the intersection between cataloging and metadata is or should be the common user tasks they support. In other words FRBR – Find, Select, Identify and Obtain.
Why Now?
Most all content standards are library based. Very few exist outside the library community. There is more and more recognition from the metadata community of the relevance of the work that the library cataloging community has done. The library community is very concerned about the commercial and legal interests in rights management as they require an intense degree of descriptive specificity that is practiced by the cataloging community currently but not by the metadata community.
The Task Force on Metadata and the Cataloging Rules stated:
“Our catalogs have become one tool among many, but those many are not separate or isolated from one another. The catalog is one tool in a network of tools.”
Conclusion
In conclusion Schottlaender responds to the three questions that he posed at the beginning and in the article title by stating:
“Because it is inescapable and seemingly more and evident every day; because it is what we are about; and finally, because not only do we need metadata as another tool in our network of tools to do what we do, but metadata needs us to help fully realize its potential.”
Critical Reflection
First of all I have to say I love the reference and comparison to the comic strip Peanuts and the character of Pigpen and his omnipresent cloud of dirt.
It would make sense for people to come together and establish some sort of order if both parties have the same end objectives. However sometimes one or both parties are stubborn and want their party to be the only one at the dance and have full control over the end product.
We as the librarian community need to realize that metadata is coming. So either embrace it and become part of the change and help to implement it and become a part of history or get out of the way and wait for everyone else to determine what parameters will become the standard for dealing with metadata.
It makes me think of a couple of quotes, “Lead, Follow, or get out of the way” and “Unless you’re the lead dog the scenery never changes.”
No comments:
Post a Comment