Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Metadata En Croûte: How to make metadata more appetizing to decision makers

154 views

Published on

Fiona Counsell Taylor & FrancisHow do we make what some might think to be boring metadata more appealing? Metadata has a PR problem and it’s time to wrap it in pastry and bake it for 40-45 minutes until golden brown. How can we motivate organizations and businesses in scholarly communications to improve their metadata? How do we support individuals to make the case for metadata solutions to decision makers in their organizations? How might we elevate the importance of metadata to motivate publishers, service providers, and libraries to make the sometimes costly infrastructure changes to enhance the completeness, connectedness, openness and reusability of metadata? ‘Incentives for Improving Metadata’ is one of Metadata 2020’s six projects, and has been described as the ‘vision’ project of the collaboration. Project participants are working to create resources to help organizations across scholarly communications understand the importance of metadata, including helping them identify tangible and appealing operational benefits for infrastructure changes. In this session Fiona will present the resources created to date and engage attendees to consider what additional resources may be helpful in their respective communities.

Published in: Education
  • Login to see the comments

Metadata En Croûte: How to make metadata more appetizing to decision makers

  1. 1. April, 2019 Metadata En Croûte Making metadata appetizing to decision makers Fiona Counsell, Taylor & Francis
  2. 2. Sushi Dish With Vegetable by Pixabay CC0 from Pexels
  3. 3. Metadata is important!
  4. 4. Metadata: Tech or business concern? ...contributing to delicious dishes of powerful and effective business needs Metadata technology provides raw ingredients... workflows micro-payments compliance reportingbusiness development Five White Plates With Different Kinds of Dishes by Pixabay CC0 from Pexels Spices Avocado and Ingredients on Table by mali maeder CC0 from Pexels
  5. 5. What is Metadata 2020? A collaboration that advocates research output metadata that is to advance scholarly pursuits for the benefit of society. RICHER fuels discoverability & innovation CONNECTED bridges gaps between systems & communities REUSABLE / OPEN eliminates duplication of effort
  6. 6. Community-identified challenges Metadata entry takes time, and must be entered multiple times Establishing streamlined, efficient workflows for metadata is challenging - siloed expertise & unclear prioritization Low adoption of metadata efforts creates a tension between quantity & quality of metadata RESEARCHERS PUBLISHERS REPOSITORIES Metadata culture is often focused on technical details rather than the bigger system-level picture LIBRARIANS Interoperability is challenging: inconsistent metadata vocabulary and community standards SERVICE PROVIDERS
  7. 7. ● Communities have similar problems and similar solutions available if they collaborate ● Efforts have been made to address challenges within each community, but few efforts have been truly cross- community ● We hope to increase effectiveness and efficiency and avoid duplication of work
  8. 8. Projects ● Having identified core concerns for multiple communities, we formed 6 closely related projects in March 2018 ● The projects were designed to address the concerns of the community groups ● Projects include participants from different communities
  9. 9. Components of a great dish Metadata Mapping and Evaluation ● Metadata recommendations & element mappings ● Metadata evaluation & guidance PLANNINGPREPARINGPRESENTATION Best Practice, Principles, and Definitions for Metadata ● Defining the terms we use about metadata ● Best practices & principles Researcher Communications & Incentives for Improving Metadata ● Researcher communications ● Incentives for improving metadata quality Photo by Stokpic from Pexels Photo by rawpixel.com from Pexels Photo by Daria Shevtsova from Pexels
  10. 10. Metadata Mapping and Evaluation
  11. 11. Metadata Recommendations & Element Mappings Group Lead: Jim Swainston, Emerald Group Publishing Purpose: To converge communities and publishers towards a shared set of recommended metadata concepts with related mappings between those recommended concepts and elements in important dialects. Outputs ● Schema index ● Schema mapping ● Flow diagram
  12. 12. Metadata Evaluation and Guidance Group Lead: Ted Habermann, Metadata Game Changers Purpose: To identify and compare existing metadata evaluation tools and mechanisms for connecting the results of those evaluations to clear, cross-community guidance. Outputs ● Index of evaluation tools ● Element-level best practice notes ● Best practices index
  13. 13. Best Practice, Principles & Definitions
  14. 14. Defining the Terms We Use About Metadata Group Lead: Scott Plutchak, University of Alabama at Birmingham (retired) Purpose: In order to communicate effectively about anything, a common language must be acknowledged, tacitly or purposefully. In the metadata space, there is not agreement on what words like property, term, concept, schema, title refer to. This project will develop a glossary of words associated with metadata, both for core concepts and disciplinary areas. Outputs ● Global metadata glossary
  15. 15. Shared Best Practices and Principles Group Leads: Howard Ratner, CHORUS; and Jennifer Kemp, Crossref Purpose: To build a set of high level best practices for using metadata across the scholarly communication cycle, in order to facilitate interoperability and easier exchange of information and data across the stakeholders in the process. Outputs ● Links to best practices & guidelines ● Metadata principles ● Metadata practices / sentiments (principles preamble)
  16. 16. Researcher Communications & Incentives
  17. 17. Researcher Communications Group Lead: Alice Meadows, ORCID; Michelle Urberg, ProQuest Purpose: Exploring ways to align efforts between communities who aim to increase the impact and consistency of communication with researchers about metadata. Outputs ● Literature Review ● Survey Results
  18. 18. Incentives for Improving Metadata Quality Group Lead: Fiona Counsell, Taylor & Francis Purpose: To highlight downstream applications and value of metadata for all parts of the community, telling real stories as evidence of how better metadata will meet their goals. Outputs ● Metadata personas ● Big benefits
  19. 19. The Metadata2020 Incentives Pyramid Advancing Research Impact Innovation Discoverability Accessibility Reducing Friction Integrity & Trust
  20. 20. Metadata Big Benefits Discoverability ● Discoverability of research maximises dissemination to create impact ● High-quality metadata = topic content discovery ● Metadata links diverse content & outputs > Connections! Discoveries! Accessibility ● High-quality metadata provides accessibility to research results ● high quality metadata utilising standards enables ○ Curation and custodianship ○ Long-term preservation ○ Machine & human readability
  21. 21. Metadata Big Benefits Reducing Friction ● Metadata standards enable system interoperability ● Interoperability enables efficiency in people and processes ● Greater efficiency leads to higher productivity ● Standards and interoperable systems reduce administrative burden Integrity & Trust ● Communities will preserve, protect and enhance trust in research ● Research transparency is key to building credibility and integrity ● Provenance metadata > resources people involved; chain of custody ● Metadata enables reproducibility of research data
  22. 22. Metadata Big Benefits Impact ● Communities/ organisation measure impact differently ● All want to position themselves to stay ahead of technology, opportunities & competitors ● Investment = benefits + increased leadership/ service reputation Innovation ● Benefits lead to greater innovation ● New services and business models for existing & start-up orgs ● Catalyst for innovation within research itself ○ New research result trends and connections ○ Increased trust and trust indicators across scientific communities ○ Research method innovation via large scale text and data mining
  23. 23. Metadata Principles For metadata to support the community, it should be COMPATIBLE: a guide to content for machines and people So, metadata must be open, interoperable, parsable, machine actionable, human readable as possible. COMPLETE: reflect the content, components and relationships as published So, metadata must be as complete and comprehensive as possible. CREDIBLE: enable content discoverability and longevity So, metadata must be of clear provenance, trustworthy and accurate. CURATED: reflect updates and new elements So, metadata must be maintained over time.
  24. 24. Personas ● Creators Those who provide descriptive information (metadata) about research and scholarly outputs ● Curators Those who classify, normalize and standardize this descriptive information to increase its value as a resource ● Custodians Those who store and maintain this descriptive information and make it available for Consumers ● Consumers Those who knowingly or unknowingly use the descriptive information to find, discover, connect and cite research and scholarly outputs
  25. 25. Adopt a persona ● What innovations do you wish were available for this role? ● What impact do you think would come from better/easier fulfilment of this role? ● What incentives would make it more desirable to perform this role? Creators | Curators | Custodians | Consumers Record your thoughts http://bit.ly/M2020_UKSGPresentationNOTES
  26. 26. How well served are you? Importance How important is the attribute? Least Most Well served? How well do current tools and process serve you? Not at all Very Attribute 1 3 5 1 3 5 Metadata Credibility/Accuracy - how correct and understandable the information I provide/use is ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ Metadata Completeness - how complete the information is can be compared to the available fields ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ Metadata Compatibility - how compatible the information I provide/use is to metadata found about other outputs, including ones submitted by others ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ Metadata Curation/Maintainability - how the metadata that I provide/use is maintained over time ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ ◯ Record your thoughts http://bit.ly/M2020_UKSGPresentationNOTES
  27. 27. Can you help? ● Over 140 individuals are involved in Metadata 2020 ● Contribute to Metadata 2020 projects! Email info@metadata2020.org for details ● Help promote our efforts to the wider community through your organizations, and social media ● Respond the the survey, circulate the survey to your colleagues/researchers ● Find us on @Metadata2020 Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and at metadata2020.org
  28. 28. Metadata2020.org @metadata2020 info@metadata2020.org @fionacounsell fiona.counsell@tandf.co.uk Thank you!
  29. 29. Questions

×