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?
We recently represented Metadata 2020 in a panel presentation in Washington, DC, at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s symposium, International Coordination for Science Data Infrastructure. The event was comprised of short talks and panels that explored existing and emerging efforts in sharing scientific research data and discussed issues related to the design and use of such systems. The one-day symposium was a great opportunity to tell others about Metadata 2020 and to share how they could participate in the cause.
Full disclosure: I am not a metadata expert. What I am is a branding and marketing consultant specialising in scholarly communications. I’ve been working in the industry since 1999 and in that time I’ve done a whole lot of research with pretty much every type of audience you can imagine. Hundreds of in-depth interviews and dozens of focus groups later, I know a thing or two about publishers, librarians, researchers, funders and other stakeholders in the scholarly ecosystem.
Following the launch of Metadata 2020 at the beginning of September, we have been delighted to receive many enquiries from individuals across scholarly communications who are eager to participate in the collaboration. The support is also clear through Twitter conersations. Thank you to all of you who have offered your help! As a result of the interest received, we have been able to start to form a variety of Community Groups for Publishers, Librarians, Researchers, Funders, Service Providers/Platforms and Tools, and Data Publishers/Repositories.