![\"metadata\"](\"https:\/\/blog.oclc.org\/next\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/metadata.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
As a metadata manager, much of my career has been focused on catalog management and authority control. Or, to put it another way, on the connections and commonalities that records share. I\u2019ve observed the slow emergence of standards for describing authority control entities\u2014topics, places, persons, bodies, works, etc.\u2014as entities in their own right, with their own descriptions and their own connections to other entities.<\/p>\n
Part of what makes my job interesting\u2014and challenging\u2014is that it\u2019s not something I can do in a vacuum, on my own. Metadata without good standards is almost useless. And standards require cooperation.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s what I love about the Metadata Managers Focus Group<\/a> of OCLC\u2019s Research Library Partnership. I get a chance to meet with others excited by metadata challenges and really dive deep into the issues that are at the forefront of our daily working lives.<\/p>\n For example, while one problem that we often face is a lack of good metadata, sometimes\u2014just like with holiday eggnog or Halloween candy\u2014we can get too much of a good thing. So how much is \u201ctoo much\u201d when it comes to metadata?<\/p>\n <\/p>\nHow much is \u201ctoo much\u201d when it comes to metadata? #OCLCnext <\/a><\/span>Share on X<\/a><\/span>\n In the digital realm, we tend to think of our search tools as potentially limitless. But how much information is useful and worth our time? During a recent meeting of the group, my colleagues discussed a record for a five-page scientific article with more than 300 author access points and no authority review. Should all of these authors be included in the catalog record? Then why not include every person involved in a film\u2019s production or in an orchestral recording?<\/p>\n It really comes down to how valuable it would be to have this information surface in the library catalog. Keep in mind that some discovery systems show only the first two lines of contributor names anyway, so these additions may not be visible to most library users. On the other hand, adding so many uncontrolled names will tend to make search results less precise. Since some libraries may have different local requirements, it\u2019s likely that one size can never fit all. But should we consider standards to guide these decisions?<\/p>\n We discussed how having an excessive number of contributors can be especially challenging when you\u2019re cataloging with authorized access points\u2014the preferred name and spelling of a person or organization formulated to be unique. In a browse-index-based world, these unique access points perform an important role in differentiating between contributors. But today, contextual information might better differentiate authors. Displaying \u201cSmith, John; born 1950; field of activity: Geology; associated with \u2026\u201d etc. could be more useful than just \u201cSmith, John, 1950-\u201c for someone searching for a particular John Smith.<\/p>\n We will rely on systems like VIAF to provide these \u201csame as\u201d relationships for us. As more contributors get unique identifiers and are associated with identifying metadata, the problem gets a little easier, but we\u2019ll still need more systems to aggregate these identifiers so we can know who we\u2019re talking about.<\/p>\n That\u2019s the conclusion I came away with from the Metadata Managers Focus Group: let\u2019s focus on ways to make the relationships between items more apparent to help information seekers find what they need.<\/p>\n Metadata managers from more than 50 institutions in ten countries meet in-person and have online conversations about questions like these all the time. Other recent topics have included<\/p>\n It\u2019s a great opportunity to exchange ideas with people like me who are fascinated by library metadata.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t always leave these discussions with clear-cut solutions. But as we talk through the issues together, we approach a better understanding of how our challenges overlap and interrelate. Which is great, because making connections between libraries and librarians has always been the best way to hone best practices for working with library metadata.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As a metadata manager, much of my career has been focused on catalog management and authority control. Or, to put it another way, on the connections and commonalities that records share. I\u2019ve observed the slow emergence of standards for describing authority control entities\u2014topics, places, persons, bodies, works, etc.\u2014as entities in their own right, with their […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":87,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[55],"tags":[90],"class_list":["post-2712","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cataloging","tag-librarianship"],"yoast_head":"\nInformation overload<\/h2>\n
Same name, different text<\/h2>\n
The joy of collaboration<\/h2>\n
\n