On RDA Implementation 3:30-4:45 PM , Thursday, March 21, 2013

Report
An Overview
of
Survey on Metadata Standards and
Best Practices for E-Resources
March 25, 2014
Bie-hwa Ma
Chengzhi Wang
Acknowledgement
& Announcement




Thank you for participating in the survey!
Thank all of you for participating in the workshop!
Thank all CEAL members for supporting the Task Force!
Thank all the CTP members and the CEAL ERMB Task Force
members for organizing this workshop
 Electronic Resources: Librarians and Vendors Round
Table
 9:30-11:00 pm, Thursday, March 27, Liberty Ballroom C,
Philadelphia Marriott Downtown
 Jointly organized by CTP, CCM, CJM, CKM, and CPS, a dialog
between East Asian librarians and vendors of electronic
contents.
 Open to all CEAL members as well as vendors and electronic
information providers
Survey Overview Outline
 Why the Survey?
 How the Survey Was Done?
 What Are the Survey Results?
 What to Do Next?
Survey Goal
 Environmental scan: survey as a systematic way to get
empirical data
 Preliminary understanding of the level of awareness
 Identify the awareness gap between librarians and
vendors, and how to bridge them
 Improve understanding, expand knowledge, enhance
skills, and determine areas/topics to work on
Survey Preparation & Design
 Preparation, Planning





General planning and preparation
Google form as the tool
Designing questionnaires
Deciding the length and format
Testing
 Questionnaire Design
 Vendor/Publisher Version and Library Version in English,
carefully reviewed by metadata and non-metadata
professionals in the U.S.
 Translated into CJK languages with terminologies verified by
professionals in Asia
 Reviewing, discussing, deciding, and finalizing, in English and
CJK languages
Survey Invitation
Participation Invitation
 Inviting library professionals and support staff
 Focus on academic libraries
 Sent invitations through CEAL listserv and CALA (Chinese
American Librarians Association) listserv in US
 Post it through the listservs of Library associations,
consortia, and Facebook groups in Mainland china, Taiwan,
Hon Kong, and Macau
 Inviting vendors/publishers
 Focus on providers of e-resources
 Sent English, CJK invitations to vendor/publisher sources
and publisher associations via CCM, CJM and CKM
Survey Management & Analysis
 Coordination and Organization
 Arranging and rationalizing timeline, and making necessary
changes
 Coordinating work of sub groups, including online form, e-mail
texts and attached Word files, all in English and 4 other scripts
 Organizing responses, re-inputting e-mailed responses, and
checking, validating, normalizing collected data
 Analyzing Data
 An overview of Preliminary Results: Library & Vendors
 With Focus on Library Survey; with Briefing on Vendors Survey
Region & Library Type:
73 Participants
Mainland
China
14
19%
1 1
2% 2%
HK
9
12%
Australia
Europe
Japan
11
15%
HK
Japan
Korea
1
1%
U.S.
25
34%
1
1%
Taiwan
10
14%
Singapore
Taiwan
U.S.
Mainland China
Position
Library
director/head
Librarian
Non-librarian
series
professional
(curator,
archivist, etc.)
Support staff
Other
13 18%
53 73%
0
0%
6
8%
1
1%
Support
staff
6
8%
Librarian
53
73%
Library
director
13
18%
Languages of Resources Primarily
Managed/Served
Chinese
49 30%
Japanese
30 19%
Mongolian
Korean
16 10%
Manchu
English
56 35%
Tibetan
Tibetan
3 2%
Other
English
Korean
Manchu
3 2%
Mongolian
2 1%
Other
3 2%
Japanese
Chinese
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Metadata from Vendors:
Current & Expected
Other
Date added to the package/database
Persistent links other than native URL
Holdings and restrictions info
Romanization
Table of Contents
Summary
System requirements
Series title
Page and volume information
Date of publication
Publisher
Place of publication
Edition information
Other changed titles
Other identifier information
ISBN/ISSN/ISRC, etc.
Author/Issuing organization
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
E-resources Metadata Received:
Current & Expected
Other
FTP pickup
Posted online regularly without…
Posted online regularly with notification
Posted online irregularly without…
Posted online irregularly with notification
Sent via email upon request
Sent via email automatically/regularly
0
5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Use of Metadata in Knowledge Bases
(KBs) by Link Resolution Services
Other
None of the above
We do not catalog the resources at
title-level and do not use the…
We convert the metadata in KBs to
brief records
We buy records from link resolution
services
0
5
10
15
20
Challenging Level: Following CJK-related
Issues in the KBs of Link Resolutions
Services
Few CJK providers/publishers have interaction with link resolution services
Not applicable
8
12%
1 (least challenging)
3
5%
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
3
1
7
9
15
2%
5%
2%
11%
14%
23%
8 (most challenging)
18
28%
Challenging Level: Following CJK-related
Issues in the KBs of Link Resolutions
Services
Link resolution service providers' lacking expertise to manage CJK resources
Not applicable
6
10%
1 (least challenging)
2
3%
2
3
4
5
6
7
4
1
10
1
10
12
6%
2%
16%
2%
16%
19%
8 (most challenging)
17
27%
Awareness of Established National &
Int’l Standards for E-resources
Not sure
20
29%
No
20
28%
Yes
30
43%
Standards Vendors Follow in Supplying
Metadata: Current & Expected
OpenURL
Marc 21
ISSN, ISBN, ISRC, etc.
AACR2
DOI
LCSH
LC Classification
PIE-J
32
30
24
19
18
18
18
13
14% ISSN, ISBN, ISRC, etc.
13% OpenURL
11% RDA
9% DOI
8% LCSH
8% KBART
8% LC Classification
6% Marc 21
38
38
37
35
34
28
32
30
9%
9%
9%
8%
8%
7%
7%
7%
KBART
9
4% Name authority headings (VIAF, LCNAF, etc.)
30 7%
RDA
9
20 5%
DDC
8
Other
6
4% PIE-J
Contributor/creator identifiers (ISNI, ORCID,
4%
etc.)
3% AACR2
Other classfication
6
3% PCC guidelines, CSR, BSR, P-N E-Resource
17 4%
Name authority headings, LCNAF
Name authority headings (VIAF, LCNAF, etc.)
PCC guidelines, CSR, BSR, P-N E-Resource
Contributor/creator identifiers (ISNI, ORCID, etc.)
ONIX
ONIX-PL
5
5
2
1
0
0
2% ONIX
2% DDC
1% ONIX-PL
0% Other classification
0% Other subject headings
0% Other
12
10
10
8
8
3
21 5%
18 4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
Anticipated Challenging Issues When
Promoting Metadata Standards to
Vendors
Unawareness of the standards
1 (least
challenging)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 (most
challenging)
2
3%
1
2
4
6
15
12
2%
3%
7%
10%
25%
20%
19
31%
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Anticipated Challenging Issues When
Promoting Metadata Standards to
Vendors
Standards are too complicated to understand
1 (least challenging)
1
2%
2
1
2%
3
5
8%
4
4
7%
5
8
13%
6
17
28%
7
13
21%
8 (most challenging)
12
20%
Anticipated Challenging Issues When
Promoting Metadata Standards to
Vendors
It is tough to communicate with CJK vendors/publishers in making
changes
1 (least challenging)
1
2%
2
1
2%
3
3
5%
4
5
8%
5
6
10%
6
14
23%
7
10
17%
8 (most challenging)
20
33%
Survey Demographics:
22 Participants of Vendors Survey
Mainland China
Taiwan
Japan
Korea
North America
3
5
7
6
1
14%
23%
32%
27%
5%
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16+ years
6
4
6
6
27%
18%
27%
27%
Publisher
Vendor/Provider/Aggregator
Platform provider
Identifier registry provider (e.g., DOI registration agency)
Other
10
18
7
2
1
26%
47%
18%
5%
3%
Types & Languages of E-resources
Primarily Provided
E-books
Other full-text databases (journal articles,
proceedings, dissertations, etc.)
E-journals
16 28%
16 28%
9 16%
References/Indexes Databases
9 16%
Online news sources
Maps/GIS
Streaming media
Other
6 10%
1 2%
1 2%
0 0%
Japanese
English
Chinese
Korean
Mongolian
Other
Tibetan
Manchu
11
10
9
5
1
1
0
0
30%
27%
24%
14%
3%
3%
0%
0%
Metadata Service Provision
Title lists of current resources only, excluding the withdrawn
titles
Comprehensive title lists labeled with material status, such as
withdrawn, ceased, etc.
Comprehensive title lists plus separate title lists/sheets for new
titles and withdrawn titles
Free brief MARC records
Fee-based brief MARC records
Free full-level MARC records
Fee-based full-level MARC records
11 33%
6 18%
2
6%
4 12%
2 6%
2 6%
2 6%
Subject headings and classification numbers assignment service
2
6%
URL checking service
2
6%
An automatic mechanism that facilitates easy online error report
and instant fix on access and metadata problems
0
0%
Other
0
0%
Relationship with, & Frequency Updating
Title Lists to, Link Resolution Services
Proactively provide them with title lists with or without fee
7 25%
Never interacted, in consideration of doing so
6 21%
Proactively provide them with MARC records with or without fee
4 14%
Metadata available upon request
4 14%
Never interacted, have no plan of doing so
Metadata freely downloaded from website
Other
3 11%
2 7%
2 7%
Monthly
Weekly
Upon request
Quarterly
Semiannually
Annually
Other
4
3
3
2
1
1
0
29%
21%
21%
14%
7%
7%
0%
Awareness of Established National and
Int’l Standards for Electronic Resources
Yes
8
38%
No
4
19%
No, but
wish to get
informatio
n on this
9
43%
No, but
wish to
know
more
9
43%
Yes
8
38%
No
4
19%
Awareness of E-Resources Standards
& Best Practices: Library and Vendors
Not sure
20
29%
No, but
wish to
know
more
9
43%
Yes
30
43%
Yes
8
38%
No
4
19%
No
20
28%
Vendors/Publishers
Library Staff
26
Compliance of Standards & Best Practices:
Currently Follow & Interested in Following
Marc 21
Other classfication
OpenURL
8
7
6
15% OpenURL
13% DOI
11% Marc 21
9
8
7
16%
14%
12%
ISSN, ISBN, ISRC, or other publication identifiers
6
11% ISSN, ISBN, ISRC, or other publication identifiers 6
11%
PIE-J
KBART
DOI
LCSH
Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC)
AACR2
RDA
ONIX
ONIX-PL
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
9%
7%
7%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
2%
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
7%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
Name authority headings (VIAF, LCNAF, etc.)
1
2%
2
4%
Other
PCC guidelines, CSR, BSR, P-N E-Resource
Other subject headings
LC Classification
Creator/contributor identifiers (ISNI, ORCID, etc.)
1
0
0
0
0
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1
1
0
0
0
2%
2%
0%
0%
0%
KBART
PIE-J
Other subject headings
Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC)
AACR2
RDA
LCSH
LC Classification
Other classification
Creator/contributor identifiers (ISNI, ORCID,
etc.)
ONIX
Name authority headings (VIAF, LCNAF, etc.)
PCC guidelines, CSR, BSR, P-N E-Resource
ONIX-PL
Other
Reasons Why not Complying with Some
or All of the Standards and Best Practices
We will consider complying with the standards for the future
resources/databases, but not for the existing ones as it is too time
consuming and costly to change what we have designed
Such metadata do not accommodate the needs of CJK
resources/scripts
Complying with the standards increases the product cost in human
resource, facilities of hardware and software, etc.
6 21%
5 18%
5 18%
Such metadata do not necessarily eliminate problems
4 14%
Unawareness of the standards
Lack metadata expertise to provide certain metadata
Standards are too complicated to understand
Other
3 11%
3 11%
1 4%
1 4%
Thank You

similar documents