Skip to content

Hanging Together

the OCLC Research blog

  • Home
  • About
Main Menu
Metadata

Metadata for audio and videos

October 29, 2018November 6, 2018 - by Karen Smith-Yoshimura
Metadata for recordings of webinars, streamed video, and course lectures represents one category of challenges

That was the topic discussed recently by OCLC Research Library Partners metadata managers, initiated by Melanie Wacker of Columbia University, Roxanne Missingham of Australian National University, and Sharon Farnel of University of Alberta. Our libraries are repositories of large amounts of audiovisual materials, which often represent unique, local collections. However, as Chela Scott Weber states in the report Research and Learning Agenda for Archives, Special and Distinctive Collections in Research Libraries, “For decades, A/V materials in our collections were largely either separated from related manuscript material (often shunted away to be dealt with at a later date) or treated at the item level. Both have served to create sizeable backlogs of un-quantified and un-described A/V materials.” The result is that today, much of this audiovisual material is in dire need of preservation, digitization, clarification of conditions of use, and description.

In addition, the skill-sets and stakeholders across institutions are complex. The nature of the management of these resources requires knowledge of the use context and well as technical metadata issues, providing a complex environment to think through programs of description and access. At the same time, libraries also must deal with current time-based media that is either being produced locally as part of research and learning, or streaming media that is being commercially licensed.

The discussions surfaced similar concerns across the OCLC Research Library Partnership, and a wide range of practices.  It proved useful to identify the issues by category of the AV materials:

  • Commercial AV: Licensing issues, replacing old formats, and the quality of accompanying vendor records
  • Unique archival collections: Often in deteriorating formats, large backlogs, lack of resources, and rare and expensive equipment that may be required to access (and assess) the files
  • Locally generated content: Desire for content-creators to describe own resources

Most of our discussion focused on the latter two categories. An over-arching challenge was how much effort to invest in describing these AV materials just because they are unique?  Institutions have used hierarchical structures to aggregate similar materials with finding aids created using the Encoded Archival Description standard, which provides useful contextual information for individual items within a specific collection. But often such finding aids lack important details about individual items needed for discovery, such as transcribed title and date broadcast. This is a particularly acute issue for legacy data describing recordings from years past.  Efforts to enhance the finding aids in a library system may not be reflected in the metadata describing the same item in digital access or archival systems. Some hope that better discovery layers will alleviate the need to repeat the same information across databases, but to present the information to the users would require using consistent access points across systems. (Metadata managers discussed this particular problem in 2014, synchronizing metadata among different databases.)

Institutions commonly prioritize which of their AV materials are to be described and preserved, assessing their importance through surveys and assigning priorities from inventories. These are often multi-divisional efforts. The OCLC report, Taking Stock and Making Hay: Archival Collections Assessment, provides assessment frameworks that may be useful in an AV context. Locally-generated content such as course lectures, performances, streamed video, and webinars are often handled by other units in academic institutions.

Rights management for AV materials are a “gazillion miles ahead” of other materials in terms of complexity. Metadata for commercial AV files may often have a link to the license in the bibliographic record so that they can track the number of simultaneous users, as required. For other AV categories, libraries are developing rights frameworks and implementing rights statements from Rightsstatements.org. Rights management is easier for new AV files acquired as they have become part of normal workflows; metadata for older materials may lack rights information. Some materials may be accessed only on-site, and rather than revise the metadata descriptions, some institutions include statements in the discovery layer that it is up to the reader to get permission from the rights holder based on the information provided.

Metadata for AV materials often include important technical information. A subset of the Partnership have implemented PREMIS (Preservation Metadata: Implementation Strategies), the international standard for metadata to support the preservation of digital objects and ensure their long-term usability, for some of their AV materials.

Given that so many institutions across the Partnership develop their own assessments and templates, an opportunity emerged to share them and identify common practices and criteria.

 

Karen Smith-Yoshimura

Karen Smith-Yoshimura, senior program officer,  topics related to creating and managing metadata with a focus on large research libraries and multilingual requirements. Karen retired from OCLC November 2020.

oclc.org/research/people/smith-yoshimura.html
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Email this to someone
email

OCLC Research

Hanging Together is the blog of OCLC Research. Learn more about OCLC Research on our website.

Links

  • Lorcan Dempsey's Weblog
  • Next – OCLC Blog
  • OCLC Research
  • OCLC Research Library Partnership
  • WebJunction

Categories

  • Archives and Special Collections (198)
  • Born-Digital Special Collections (14)
  • Collective Collections (118)
  • Data Science (7)
  • Digital Preservation (69)
  • Digitization (24)
  • Equity, Diversity, Inclusion (EDI) (11)
  • Evolving Scholarly Record (11)
  • Higher Education Future (8)
  • Identifiers (34)
  • Infrastructure and Standards Support (101)
  • Libraries (93)
  • Libraries Archives and Museums (128)
  • Libraries in the Enterprise (2)
  • Library Management (7)
  • Linked Data (47)
  • Measurement and Behaviors (44)
  • Metadata (89)
  • Miscellaneous (176)
  • Modeling new services (112)
  • MOOCs (7)
  • Museums (57)
  • Open Access (14)
  • Renovating Descriptive Practice (127)
  • Research Data Management (22)
  • Research Information Management (37)
  • Research Library Partnership (167)
  • Research support (27)
  • Resource Sharing (8)
  • Searching (38)
  • SHARES (7)
  • Social Interoperability (4)
  • Supporting Scholarship (65)
  • Systemwide Organization (42)
  • User Behavior Studies and Synthesis (6)
  • Visual Resources (17)
  • Web Archiving (14)
  • WebJunction (7)
  • Wikimedia (43)

Share Buttons

Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Email this to someone
email

Recent Comments

  • Eden Walker on Next Generation Metadata… it’s getting real!
  • Chela Metzger on Total Cost of Stewardship: a new publication from the OCLC RLP
  • Merrilee Proffitt on Engaging in “Difficult Conversations” on race: lessons learned from an RLP team practice group
  • Jeff Belliston on Engaging in “Difficult Conversations” on race: lessons learned from an RLP team practice group
  • Gail Thornburg on さようなら (Sayōnara)

Recent Posts

  • Recognizing bias in research data – and research data management
  • Accomplishments and priorities for the OCLC Research Library Partnership
  • Dutch round table on next generation metadata: think bigger than NACO and WorldCat
  • Third English round table on next generation metadata: investing in the utility of authorities and identifiers
  • Mesa redonda sobre metadatos de próxima generación en español: la gestión de las identidades de los investigadores es lo más importante

Admin.

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
© 2020 OCLC