Work Package 1 of Telematics for Libraries project BIBLINK (LB 4034)
Table of Contents
Project partners need to consider these scoping issues and refine the scoping of the project to allow criteria to be drawn up for decision making.
Predicated on the stated assumptions as to scope, it is recommended that BIBLINK should concentrate on formats in Bands Two and Three for the exchange format. This does not preclude the possibility that conversion will be required from formats outside these Bands e.g. from more complex formats in Band Four into a simpler format, but that the formats for data exchange would be located in Band Two or Three.
As part of the consensus building process, publishers and national libraries should identify the objects and relationships which need to be represented in metadata describing electronic resources.
Project participants need to agree a clearer definition of:
It seems one metadata format may not be sufficient for the diverse body of publishers described in the scoping document. It would be more realistic to consider two formats to allow for the creation of a brief record and a more complex record.
Consider use of Dublin Core as a minimum element set. Consider use of BIC non-serial DTD and SSSH for more complex records. Consider implementation of Warwick Framework to package more complex SGML records with Dublin Core records.
We accept that all metadata formats in this area are unstable. We need to define what level of maturity and stability are required in our format(s) of choice. At that stage we may wish to influence the development of the format(s).
A study by the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) to undertake a comparative analysis and produce a series of recommendations is also underway, and will be documented separately.
This report will have an impact on the following phase 1 work packages:
|Next||Table of Contents|