Interoperability needs to be motivated by service requirements, not fetishized as an end it itself.
As part of our work to "examine the feasibility of approaches to improve the consistency with which repositories share material", we are looking at this in regard to 3 areas: metadata (this idea), the materials themselves and descriptions of repository policies (e.g. on IPR) [materials and policies appear as separate ideas].
People who might create services from repository-based information
will be looking for simple human-readable information on the policies,
formats and metadata used by repositories. This is as important as
creating machine-readable interfaces.
The changes in technology, the diversity of cataloguing practice,
the diversity of ownership and legal considerations and the
possibilities for metadata to be created remotely all mean that
acceptable and achievable recommendations for consistency between
repositories are likely to be broad principles with examples of good
practice rather than prescriptive rules or precise recommendations.
Part of our work to examine the feasibility of approaches to improve the consistency with which repositories share the materials they hold (this idea), the metadata and descriptions of repository policies
Far from becoming irrelevant, metadata for repository items will
become more important but it will increasingly be created and assigned
remotely. This will be by automated procedures such as indexing and
text analysis and also by users and readers, through the use of
tagging mechanisms. These developments will have implications for
consistency between repositories and between items.
Inconsistency is a fact of life, and any repository instance or system that wants to avoid bottlenecks is going to have to accept items that have inconsistent metadata (and possibly inconsistent formats and policies, though consistency in those areas may be easier or more important to enforce). That doesn't mean you have to settle for it, though. It's possible to take a progressive approach, where messy metadata comes ...more »
Part of our work to examine the feasibility of approaches to improve the consistency with which repositories share descriptions of repository policies (e.g. on IPR) - this idea -, metadata and the materials themselves.
Test idea. The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
In particular we want to ask these key interviewees the questions to which you would like to hear the answers. So if you have an interesting or useful question (or more than one), particularly concerning the creation of user-facing services using repository content, then please use the comment facility to suggest it. Or even better put it here as a new idea (go to the home page and choose New Idea, then choose category ...more »
We cannot achieve consistency, so if it is important then we are doomed to failure. Why can't we achieve consistency? There are (say) 200 universities in the UK, and perhaps 20,000 worldwide, then there are subject repositories, project repositories, library and archive repositories and commercial repositories (which may be free or charged for or a mixture). There are data repositories, image repositories, paper ...more »
For all practical purposes, the ability to express metadata as the
Dublin Core metadata elements is a sufficient baseline for sharing
repository items across subject and institutional domains.