Contextual Metadata in Digital Aggregations: Application of Collection-Level Subject Metadata and Its Role in User Interactions and Information Retrieval

Journal of Library Metadata

Volumn 11, Issue 3-4, 2011, Pages 104-128

  Zavalina, Oksana L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

collection level metadata; contextual metadata; digital libraries; information users; subject access; subject metadata

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855510361     PISSN: 19386389     EISSN: 19375034     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19386389.2011.629957     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. ALCTS/CCS/SAC/Subcommittee on Metadata and Subject Analysis. 1999. Subject data in the metadata record: A report from the ALCTS/CCS/SAC/Subcommittee on Metadata and Subject Analysis working draft Retrieved from http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s12/mom/appendx3.htm
2. Allen, B. and Sutton, S. 1993. Exploring the intellectual organization of an interdisciplinary research institute. College & Research Libraries, 54: 499-515.
3. Bearman, D. 1992. "Contexts of creation and dissemination as approaches to documents that move and speak. In H. Naugler (Ed.), Documents that move and speak: Audiovisual archives in the new information age". In Proceedings of a symposium held 30 April to 3 May 1990 at the National Archives of Canada, 140-149. Munchen: K. E. Saur.
4. Borgman, C. 1986. Why are online catalogs hard to use? Lessons learned from information retrieval studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37(6): 387-400.
5. Borgman, C. 1996. Why are online catalogs still hard to use?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(7): 493-503.
6. Cochrane, P. 1985. Redesign of catalogs and indexes for improved online subject access: Selected papers of Pauline A. Cochrane, Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.
7. Cochrane, P. 1986. Improving LCSH for use in online catalogs, Colorado Springs, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
8. Cochrane, P. 2000. Improving LCSH for use in online catalogs revisited: What progress has been made? What issues still remain?. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 29(1-2): 73-89.
9. Cole, T. and Shreeves, S. 2004. Search and discovery across collections: The IMLS Digital Collections and Content project. Library Hi Tech, 22(3): 307-322.
10. Crystal, A. and Greenberg, J. 2006. Relevance criteria identified by health information users during Web searches. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10): 1368-1382.
11. rd International Workshop P. Isaias, F. Sedes, J. Augusto, & U. Ultes-Nitsche (Eds.)Retrieved from www.global-report.com//drori/?l=he&a=3330
12. Foulonneau, M., Cole, T., Habing, T. and Shreeves, S. 2005. "Using collection descriptions to enhance an aggregation of harvested item-level metadata". In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL '05), Edited by: Sumner, T. and Shipman, F. 32-41. New York, NY: ACM.
13. Fraser, B. and Gluck, M. 1999. Usability of geospatial metadata or space-time matters. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 25(6) Retrieved from http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Aug-99/fraser_gluck.html
14. Geisler, G., Giersch, S., McArthur, D. and McCelland, M. 2002. "Creating virtual collections in digital libraries: Benefits and implementation issues". In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL '02), Edited by: Marchionini, G. 210-218. New York, NY: ACM.
15. Greenberg, J. 2005. "Metadata and the World Wide Web". In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, Edited by: Drake, M. 1876-1888. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
16. Gross, T. and Taylor, R. 2005. What have we got to lose? The effect of controlled vocabulary on keyword searching results. College and Research Libraries, 66(3): 212-230.
17. Hjørland, B. 1997. Information seeking and subject representation: An activity-theoretical approach to information science, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
18. International Council of Museums/CIDOC. 2007. Definition of the CIDOC conceptual reference model (Version 4.2.3). Retrieved from http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/cidoc_crm_version_4.2.3.pdf
19. Jackson, A. S., Han, M.-J., Groetsch, K., Mustafoff, M. and Cole, T. W. 2008. Dublin Core metadata harvested through OAI-PMH. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(1): 5-21.
20. Jackson, S. 1958. Catalog use study: Director's report, Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
21. Johnston, P. and Robinson, B. 2002. Collections and collection description. Collection Description Focus Briefing Paper, 1 Retrieved from http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/cd-focus/briefings/bp1/bp1.pdf
22. Kurtz, M. 2010. Dublin Core, DSpace, and a brief analysis of three university repositories. Information Technology & Libraries, 29(1): 40-46.
23. Larson, R. 1991a. Between Scylla and Charybdis: Subject searching in online catalogs. Advances in Librarianship, 15: 175-236.
24. Larson, R. 1991b. The decline of subject searching: Long-term trends and patterns of index use in an online catalog. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(3): 197-215.
25. Lee, H. 2000. What is a collection?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(12): 1106-1113.
26. Lee, H. 2003. Information spaces and collections: Implications for organization. Library & Information Science Research, 25(4): 419-436.
27. Lee, H. 2005. The concept of collection from the user's perspective. Library Quarterly, 75(1): 67-85.
28. Lipetz, B. 1970. User requirements in identifying desired works in a large library: Final report, New Haven, CT: Yale University Library. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED042479.pdf
29. Lourdi, I., Papatheodorou, C. and Doerr, M. 2009. Semantic integration of collection description: Combining CIDOC/CRM and Dublin Core Collections Application Profile. D-Lib Magazine, 15(7/8) Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july09/papatheodorou/07papatheodorou.html
30. Macgregor, G. 2003. Collection-level descriptions: Metadata of the future?. Library Review, 52(5-6): 247-250
31. Matthews, J., Lawrence, G. and Ferguson, D. 1983. Using online catalogs: A nationwide survey-a report of a study sponsored by the Council on Library Resources, New York, NY: Neal-Schuman.
32. Miller, P. 2000. Collected wisdom: Some cross-domain issues of collection-level description. D-Lib Magazine, 6(Sept.) Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september00/miller/09miller.html
33. NISO Framework Working Group. 2007. A framework of guidance for building good digital collections, 3rd ed., Bethesda, MD: National Information Standards Organization. Retrieved from http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/framework3.pdf
34. Palmer, C., Zavalina, O. and Mustafoff, M. 2007. "Trends in metadata practices: A longitudinal study of collection federation metadata". In Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL '07), Edited by: Larson, R., Toms, E. and Sugimoto, S. 386-395. New York, NY: ACM.
35. Shreeves, S. L., Riley, J. and Milewicz, L. 2006. Moving towards sharable metadata. First Monday, 11(8) Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_8/shreeves/index.html
36. Tagliacozzo, R. and Kochen, M. 1970. Information-seeking behavior of catalog users. Information Storage and Retrieval, 6: 363-381.
37. Wang, P. and Soergel, D. 1998. A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study 1: Document selection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 49(2): 115-133.
38. Weagley, J., Gelches, E. and Park, J. 2010. Interoperability and metadata quality in digital video repositories: A study of Dublin Core. Journal of Library Metadata, 10(1): 37-57.
39. Zavalina, O. L., Palmer, C. L., Jackson, A. S. and Han, M.-J. 2008a. "Assessing descriptive substance in free-text collection-level metadata". In Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications Berlin, Germany Sept. 22-26, 2008
40. Zavalina, O. L., Palmer, C. L., Jackson, A. S. and Han, M.-J. 2008b. Evaluating descriptive richness in collection-level metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4): 263-292.