Re: [ARSCLIST] MIC and cataloguing

[Jane Johnson <jjohnson@xxxxxxx>]

George:

I'm not sure if you're talking about the mapping of the actual data elements (i.e., the fields, such as title, date, contents), or mapping the definitions of the actual data *content,* such as a subject descriptor, but allow me to address both.  Please see my comments below.  

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Jane D. Johnson
MIC Project Manager
Library of Congress 
jjohnson@xxxxxxx 
(202) 707-5903
(732) 445-5904
(732) 445-5888 (fax)

Visiting Scholar
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

MIC: Moving Image Collections
A Library of Congress-AMIA Collaboration
http://mic.loc.gov
>>> pattac@xxxxxxxx 05/19/05 6:40 PM >>>
From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad

Jane Johnson gave us a magnificient overview of a universal and very flexible
database structure that it is proposed to implement.

Here I have picked on a very important paragraph, important, because it
contains a statement that spells trouble if nobody uniforms terminology.

----- the paragraph is:

The only criteria for Union Catalog participation are 1) machine-readable
records and 2) an entry in the MIC Archive Directory, because the Directory
and the Union Catalog databases are linked.  (A key innovation of MIC is to
integrate the Archive Directory and the Union Catalog so that information
about obtaining an organization's resources is displayed right alongside the
bibliographic record supplied by that organization.) The organization (or
individual) submits an application, sample records and field list, then MIC
populates an online form with this data so that the organization can name MIC
data element equivalents for its own fields.  This utility will allow small
under-supported archives--and individuals--with very little metadata
expertise to share their records with a much broader audience, while enabling
large archives to integrate multiple metadata schema into a single system.

----- and the statement that I shall discuss briefly is:

The organization (or
individual) submits an application, sample records and field list, then MIC
populates an online form with this data so that the organization can name MIC
data element equivalents for its own fields.

----- The key term here is "MIC data element equivalents". What if there is
no equivalent, or if there is only a partial overlap between the type of
content in the organization's hierarchy and definitions and the definition of
a particular MIC data element?

____________________________________________________________
In this initial stage of its development, MIC is a tool for discovery, rather than collection management.  Therefore we have included in the MIC core registry all of the data elements essential for discovery (i.e. descriptive metadata: title, date, summary, credits, etc.).  We have mapped to a number of metadata schema, both standard and in-house, and are confident that the MIC core data registry supports the four user tasks defined in IFLA's "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records": to find, identify, select, and obtain.  (Cf. http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm.)  The MIC mapping utility also provides tremendous flexibility by allowing organizations to separate multiple values in a single data element and to concatenate (chain together) two or more fields from their schema, then map the combination to a single MIC field.  In other words, we don't require a one-to-one match of data elements.  MIC's is a very rich schema, so most everything which is essential -will- map.  Most of what doesn't map tends to be local or non-public, and/or falls in the category of administrative or rights metadata.  MIC's incorporation of additional and effectively structured administrative, rights, and technical metadata will come in our next development phase, when we develop a METS-compliant cataloging utility that will enable the creation and collection of the range of metadata needed to manage, preserve and provide access to moving images.  (METS is the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard; cf. http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/).
___________________________________________________________

If a search is made, then all of those items that appear, which upon scrutiny
are not as expected, must be regarded as false drops or noise. So, in the
metadata (comment field) concerning a descriptor, there must be an
authorization code. That way a searcher can limit the search to an authority
that he trusts. 

_____________________________________________________
I agree with you completely that precision in retrieval is dependent on a controlled vocabulary with syndetic structure, preferably one constructed according to national or international standards.  (Note there is a prominent link to an original white paper on precisely this topic on the Cataloging & Metadata portal home page (http://mic.imtc.gatech.edu/catalogers_portal/cat_index.htm), which in turn links to lists of controlled vocabulary standards and resources.)  While we at MIC consider authority control critical to effective retrieval, we have not yet tackled these issues for our Union Catalog.  Because we are simultaneously addressing a number of goals and integrating multiple technologies to create a full-fledged union catalog with mapping utility, cataloging utility, linked directories, and informational resources, we knew from the beginning that a phased implementation would be required.  Authority control could not be included in this first phase.  That said, we continue to consider a number of approaches to an authority implementation, knowing that the more records we have in the catalog, the more effectively we can test the implementation.  There is some very interesting work being done internationally in this area, which Rutgers University Libraries, our lead developer, is already looking to implement in similar projects.  
_______________________________________________________________


Or else, if the searcher has had good experiences searching a
particular individual's database, he should be able to limit the search to
that.
________________________________________________________________
One of MIC's nice features is that it allows users to limit union catalog searches to a particular organization's (or individual's) records.  Further, it links MIC Archive Directory data to the Union Catalog bibliographic record display, so that users can readily go from a MIC record to information on how to obtain or view the resource.  The MIC Archive Directory entry also includes a link to the organization's *catalog* as well as to its home page.  Thus the user can choose to search an organization's or individual's complete records at its own site, using its own local system.
__________________________________________________________________

All of this is really best done by means of a thesaurus structure (controlled
vocabulary). Time invested in creating a full set of authorized descriptors
and maintaining it is to the good of all, but obviously to the cost of those
who do the work. In a previous posting I have lamented that with the
appearance of fast hard drives, the perceived need for thesauri disappeared -
sequential sorting being resorted to. But really, it is the only way of
mastering a field and obtaining precision in retrieval. Just think of the
fact that anything misspelt in the wrong place of a word will not be
retrieved using the correct form of that word. Certain misspellings may
sometimes still be caught by truncation. Again here, terms from a controlled
vocabulary would increase precision.

_____________________________________________________________
Well said!

All best,

Jane