Name: Emily Moyer
My group has chosen this topic: Digital Collections & Metadata
I am interested in this topic because: Metadata is ubiquitous (as our group discovered when trying to narrow down topics). There are different metadata types, models, schemes, and standards that all represent various applications of information creation, retrieval, and access. Right now, I work in a position where I work to preserve physical materials. However, there is an increasing demand for the digitization of images and other media that requires metadata standards for inventory documentation, interoperability, and digital preservation efforts. I am interested in exploring an area that I am unfamiliar with and delve into the underbelly of metadata embedded within digital collections.
Baca, M. & Harpring, P. (2009). Categories for the Description of Works of Art. J Paul Getty Trust & College Art Association.
Ma, J. (2006). Managing Metadata for Digital Projects. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 30 (1-2), 3-17.
Stein, R. & Coburn, E. (2008). CDWA Lite and Museumdat: New Developments in Metadata Standards for Cultural Heritage Information. Annual Conference of CIDOC.
Waibel, G., LeVan, R. & Washburn, B. (2010). Museum Data Exchange: Learning How to Share. OCLC Research. http://oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2010/2010-02.pdf
Based on my preliminary research, I have chosen to focus on the following aspect of our group topic:
I have chosen to focus on CDWA (Categories for the Description of Works of Art), a metadata framework for describing and structuring information about works of art and material culture. For two summers I worked in the Photoarchive at the Frick Collection pulling photographs and negatives for a NEH funded digitization project. With this topic, I have the opportunity to explore the metadata creation of the Frick Digital Image Archive in conjunction with Artstor that occurred after the images were pulled. In the final paper, I will consider the barriers users face with specific controlled vocabularies (i.e. Art and Architecture Thesaurus, Union List of Art Names, and Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names), data content standards (i.e Cataloging Cultural Objects), and technical format (CDWA Lite XML Schema).
Some unresolved questions:
What specific attributes does CDWA offer that make it a better standardization than general Dublin core metadata? How are intrinsic and extrinsic relationships described within CDWA?