Metadata beyond Dublin Core

[Christoforos Korifidis]

Hello, 

I am using DSpace 7.5.

I would like to know from your experience, what is the best approach to use metadata that don't fit exactly on DC schema. 

Let's say I want to use the following four metadata to describe an artifact. 

1. Height (number) 

2. Width (number) 

3. Depth (number) 

4. Arrangement [ horizontal, vertical]

Those four according to DC Schema should be put in the element Format.Extent but this is one field and the user should have to submit something like "3x4x5xvertical" . 

 

I don't find this to beuser friendly. 

I want to have 4 different fields. 

As far as I can see I have 3 alternatives. (Please let me know I there are other options). 

1. Extend Dublin core metadata with four extra elements like that:

a. Format. Extent.Height

b. Format. Extent.Width

c. Format. Extent.Depth

d. Format. Extent.Arrangement.

2. Add one more schema let's say schema.org.Product and use it's elements in combination with a custom element like that:

1. Product. Height

2. Product. Width

3. Product. Depth

4. Local. Arrangement (This is a total custom element. I could not find a schema that has such an element) 

3. Use RDF to describe my metadata by linking them to a schema  let's say schema.org.product 

So which one consider to be the best approach? 

On the 3rd option, do I also have to add my metadata to the DSpace metadata registry or is it enough to declare them as linked data only? 

Thanks in advance. 

[Mark H. Wood]

On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 05:27:31PM +0300, Christoforos Korifidis wrote:
> I am using DSpace 7.5.
> I would like to know from your experience, what is the best approach to use
> metadata that don't fit exactly on DC schema.

I'm not a metadata expert, but for what it is worth:

> Let's say I want to use the following four metadata to describe an
> artifact.
> 1. Height (number)
> 2. Width (number)
> 3. Depth (number)
> 4. Arrangement [ horizontal, vertical]
>
> Those four according to DC Schema should be put in the element
> Format.Extent but this is one field and the user should have to submit
> something like "3x4x5xvertical" .
>
> I don't find this to beuser friendly.
> I want to have 4 different fields.
> As far as I can see I have 3 alternatives. (Please let me know I there are
> other options).
>
> 1. Extend Dublin core metadata with four extra elements like that:
> a. Format. Extent.Height
> b. Format. Extent.Width
> c. Format. Extent.Depth
> d. Format. Extent.Arrangement.

Please don't extend DC. Your extensions will be meaningless outside
of your site, and harvesters will filter them out.

> 2. Add one more schema let's say schema.org.Product and use it's elements
> in combination with a custom element like that:
> 1. Product. Height
> 2. Product. Width
> 3. Product. Depth
> 4. Local. Arrangement (This is a total custom element. I could not find a
> schema that has such an element)

This is what I would do. Schema.org is known to other sites, and
harvesters may be able to understand those fields.

Your local schema will at least not be harvested, so harvesters won't
have to discard that field. If you have a generally useful
definition for this field, you might decide to share it with other
sites that catalog physical objects.

> 3. Use RDF to describe my metadata by linking them to a schema let's say
> schema.org.product

I can't comment on this one.

My general advice:

1. Search diligently for namespaces which already have definitions for
the concepts that you wish to represent. If you find some, use
the best fit(s) from those.

2. Create something that could be useful outside of your institution,
and share it with published namespace standards or (if there are
none) publish it yourself.

3. If your concept is of only local value, or must be kept secret,
put it in the 'local' schema and don't offer it to harvesters.

--
Mark H. Wood
Lead Technology Analyst

University Library
Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis
755 W. Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
317-274-0749
www.ulib.iupui.edu