Action and Overlaps Each project has now had at least three meetings, and activity for each is ramping up. As it does so, several short term subgroups have emerged, and cross-project collaborations have formed. Survey P.1 ‘Researcher Communications’ and P.3 ‘Defining the Terms We Use About Metadata’ have both identified a need for a survey for researchers about their uses and needs of metadata. They will be forming a subgroup including representatives from each project to write the survey before consulting with the ‘Researchers’ Community Group to check for accuracy and relevance.
The Metadata 2020 Project Thread Metadata 2020 has recently initiated six projects that form a unified framework supporting the metadata improvement goals and aspirations of the project: Researcher Communication - Exploring ways to align efforts between communities that aim to increase the impact and consistency of communication with researchers about metadata. Metadata Recommendation and Evaluation Mappings - To converge communities and publishers towards a shared set of recommended metadata concepts with related mappings between those recommended concepts and elements in important dialects.
Summary Through discussions and additional work, Metadata 2020 project participants have now created 4-6 month project plans for intended execution between May and October 2018, and in some cases have already started to advance the work. Participants are also benefiting from a useful exchange of ideas in meetings. Thanks to everyone giving up their time and contributing their expertise to this important work. 1. Researcher Communications Led by: Carly Strasser
Summary The first meetings for the Metadata 2020 projects have now taken place. They focused on the breadth and scope of each project, discussing the crossovers with other projects, and potential overlaps and need for synchronization with other metadata-related initiatives in scholarly communications. 1. Researcher Communications Chaired by: Carly Strasser This group discussed the significance of communicating with researchers to all scholarly communications community groups - Publishers, Librarians, Data Publishers and Repositories, Service Providers, and Funders.
Summary The following article discusses and examines Hindawi’s approach to metadata, and the opportunities and challenges we and other publishers face. Published content By the time an article is published in final format, it consists of a typeset PDF and a HTML display both based on XML and an e-pub. All our content is open access and anyone is able to download the PDF, the XML and/or e-pub. Hindawi adheres to JATS DTD and has done so since 2012, and we retrospectively updated XML of all our published content since 2008.
The KBART format (Knowledge Bases and Related Tools) was developed by a NISO Working Group as a way to standardize the title level information content providers send to discovery services to facilitate customer access. This standard, developed by library, content provider, and discovery service industry stakeholders, creates efficiencies across the supply chain, and creating KBART files for title based projects has been an exceptionally helpful investment for Oxford University Press.
I’ve worked in the content side of scholarly publishing for 25 years, and I cannot count the number of times I’ve been asked or overheard the question, “what is metadata exactly?” I always have a pretty visceral negative reaction to the description of metadata as “data about data.” Not because the definition is wrong (it isn’t), but because it is just not helpful. You’re always left with the follow-up thought, “OK, so what does that mean?
One of the interesting ingredients for success in several current metadata projects is agreement across communities about what metadata are important for various use cases. In an earlier blog, I introduced the idea that metadata recommendations provide descriptions of which documentation concepts communities or organizations believe are important. These recommendations provide an opportunity to identify similarities and differences between community beliefs. We have collected recommendations from 10-20 organizations and communities as part of an NSF Project aimed at evaluating metadata collections in various dialects with respect to these recommendations.
First let me say what a pleasure it is for me to write this blog post. Thanks to the Metadata 2020 team for giving me this opportunity. On the 7th of November, I had the pleasure to attend the workshop given by the Metadata2020 group at the Charleston Conference. Metadata2020 is a collaboration project between librarians, publishers and service providers that advocates the creation of better metadata. At the workshop, among the attendees were librarians, publishers and other information professionals.
Embracing the enormity of metadata challenges in Scholarly Communications through Community Group discussions. Metadata 2020 has always had big goals. From the earliest conversations between Metadata 2020 Director Ginny Hendricks and the Advisory Group she quickly convened, it was clear that there were a number of different directions a collaborative effort could take to improve metadata scholarly communications, the possibilities were seemingly endless. How, then, to narrow the scope and organize efforts?