DSpace Updates-11/2/18

Created by Gabe Galson
Nov 02, 2018
2 min read

The IR Services Metadata Subgroup has begun its work!

The group consists of @Rachel Appel (Unlicensed) [Chair], @Gabe Galson [Project manager], @Jasmine Clark, @Leanne Finnigan (Unlicensed), @Holly Tomren, @Stefanie Ramsay (Unlicensed), and @Matthew Ducmanas. As described in the last DSpace blog post, this is a working group chartered through the main IR Services group. We will meet bi-weekly for as long as necessary, and will attend to the configuration of the metadata housed in Temple’s DSpace-based institutional repository.

As stated in the project charter, the group will design a metadata model that:

  • Ensures stewardship of resources through the entire digital lifecycle

  • Is flexible and interoperable with other infrastructures that may need to interact with the repository for discovery across environments

  • Meets user requirements based on self-service submissions as well as administratively applied description

  • Adheres to standards

  • Applies to a variety of record and object types

  • Follows specifications required or recommended by the repository platform or infrastructure

  • Determines user needs and how they may impact metadata creation

  • Clearly outlines guidelines, fields, and how those fields should be populated

  • Is well documented and outlines decisions made

  • Has a clear workflow and application process

Getting started

The group’s first project is to create a comprehensive schema that will be implementable in DSpace, and that will meet our needs going forward. Here’s how this process has worked so far.

  1. We’re looking at various IRs and the way they organize their metadata. For starters we’re focusing on University of Minnesota, UT Austin, Cornell, TriCo, Georgetown, UC Irvine, UT Austin, Cornell, Auburn, Brandeis, Duke, Washington State University & Virginia Tech. If you know of any other excellent or interesting institutional repositories please don’t hesitate to point them out to the group!

  2. We brainstormed, creating a list of fields we’ll need in our IR. Determining which fields will be necessary can be tricky, as as metadata will be incoming from multiple sources- Elements, ProQuest, and direct submission via form. Each team member was assigned several fields, for which they’ll suggest mappings based on their own expertise and/or supplementary research into IR metadata best practices. We’ll then review this body of work as a group.