What does it mean to adopt a metadata standard? A case study of Omeka and the Dublin Core

Date09 July 2018
Pages674-691
Published date09 July 2018
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2017-0095
AuthorDeborah Maron,Melanie Feinberg
Subject MatterLibrary & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management,Classification & cataloguing,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Scholarly communications/publishing,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management,Information & communications technology,Internet
What does it mean to adopt a
metadata standard? A case study
of Omeka and the Dublin Core
Deborah Maron
School of Information and Library Science,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA, and
Melanie Feinberg
School of Library and Information Science (SILS),
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to employ a case study of the Omeka content management system to
demonstrate how the adoption and implementation of a metadata standard (in this case, Dublin Core) can
result in contrasting rhetorical arguments regarding metadata utility, quality, and reliability. In the Omeka
example, the author illustrate a conceptual disconnect in how two metadata stakeholders standards creators
and standards users operationalize metadata quality. For standards creators such as the Dublin Core
community, metadata quality involves implementing a standard properly, according to established usage
principles; in contrast, for standards users like Omeka, metadata quality involves mere adoption of the
standard, with little consideration of proper usage and accompanying principles.
Design/methodology/approach The paper uses an approach based on rhetorical criticism. The paper
aims to establish whether Omekas given ends (the position that Omeka claims to take regarding Dublin Core)
align with Omekas guiding ends (Omekas actual argument regarding Dublin Core). To make this
assessment, the paper examines both textual evidence (what Omeka says) and material-discursive evidence
(what Omeka does).
Findings The evidence shows that, while Omeka appears to argue that adopting the Dublin Core is an
integral part of Omekas mission, the platforms lack of support for Dublin Core implementation makes an
opposing argument. Ultimately, Omeka argues that the appearance of adopting a standard is more important
than its careful implementation.
Originality/value This study contributes to our understanding of how metadata standards are
understood and used in practice. The misalignment between Omekas position and the goals of the Dublin
Core community suggests that Omeka, and some portion of its users, do not value metadata interoperability
and aggregation in the same way that the Dublin Core community does. This indicates that, although certain
values regarding standards adoption may be pervasive in the metadata community, these values are not
equally shared amongst all stakeholders in a digital library ecosystem. The way that standards creators
(Dublin Core) understand what it means to adopt a standardis different from the way that standards users
(Omeka) understand what it means to adopt a standard.
Keywords Digital libraries, Classification, Generation and dissemination of information,
Written communications, Standards, Communication, Information studies, Bibliographic systems
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Many women are familiar with this scenario: you are browsing the racks for a new summer
dress, and you spy an option that seems to fit your taste and needs. Now, which size should you
try on? If the selection permits, you will likely tak e three different sizes back to the fitting room.
Why? Because womens clothing sizes, while theoretically standardized, are anything but.
If yoursizeis a US size 6, your closetundoubtedly includes clothingin sizes 4, 8, and even10.
When manufacturers use a sizing standardin a particular way, they send different
kinds of messages to potential customers. A generously sized 6 and a restrictively sized 6
make contrasting statements about normalweights and shapes, for example.
The phenomenon of vanity sizing,or assigning smaller numbers to more generous
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 74 No. 4, 2018
pp. 674-691
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-06-2017-0095
Received 30 June 2017
Revised 26 February 2018
Accepted 4 March 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
674
JD
74,4
cuts, enables larger women to select smaller sizes and feel better about themselves.
In contrast, high fashion sizes tend to be smaller, suggesting an air of exclusivity.
Moreover, a single boutique that includes a diverse range of sizing implementations
communicates something about the standard itself: while clothing sizes are not
meaningless (a 2 will be smaller than a 16, and if yoursize is a 6, a 16 is probably
too large), merely adopting the standard does not mean that the information provided is
reliable or of any particular quality. In thecaseofvanitysizing,theappearanceof
being a size 2 is more valuable to the customer than adherence to any predictable system
of measurement.
Within information studies, adopting a descriptive standard, such as the Dublin Core
metadata standard, is often perceived as a baseline indicator of metadata quality and
reliability (Park, 2009). But when an organization adopts a standard, what is really being
communicated to whom? As with the example of clothing sizes, the claim of adoption might
send different messages depending on how the standard is implemented in practice.
For example, if the Dublin Core elements are implemented with as diverse a range of
interpretations as womens clothing sizes, then the rhetorical argument invoked by adopting
a standard for descriptive metadata that consistent, reliable metadata is useful and that
metadata quality is important might be undercut by the contrasting rhetorical argument
of actual metadata implementation. As with vanity sizing, the mere appearance of adopting
a standard like Dublin Core may be more valuable to some users than actual adherence to
Dublin Core best practices for metadata quality.
In this paper, we employ a case study to demonstrate how the adoption and
implementation of a metadata standard can result in contrasting rhetorical arguments
regarding metadata utility, quality, and reliability. Our case study examines the adoption of
the Dublin Core metadata standard by the digital library platform Omeka, which is popular
for digital humanities projects. We propose that, while Omeka appears to make a certain
rhetorical argument by adopting Dublin Core, the platforms lack of support for Dublin Core
implementation makes an opposing argument. Ultimately, Omeka argues that the
appearance of adopting a standard is more important than its careful implementation.
Through this Omekaexample, we illustrate a conceptualdisconnect in how two metadata
stakeholders standards creators and standards users operationalize metadata quality.
For standards creators and advocates such as the Dublin Core community, metadata quality
involves implementing a standard properly, according to established usage principles; in
contrast, for standards users like Omeka, metadata quality involves mere adoption of the
standard, with little consideration of proper usage and accompanying principles.
To construct our case study, we employ the Aristotelian concepts of given ends and
guiding ends. Givenends comprise the stated goal or desired outcome of a series of rhetorical
acts. Guiding ends constitute the craft, or means of attaining that goal (Garver, 1994). In a
successful rhetorical argument, given ends and guiding ends align. Using the concepts of
given ends and guiding ends, we focus our case study on two research questions:
RQ1. What rhetorical argument is Omeka making regarding Dublin Core?
RQ2. How does Omekas argument about Dublin Core align with the goals of the Dublin
Core community regarding metadata quality?
Omekas mission, described on its website, involves making standards based, serious
online publishingsimple for non-professionals. This goal to be serious and standards
based forms Omekas given ends. Omekas guiding ends comprise the actual rhetorical
argument made through its textual statements and material actions. Evidence for the
guiding ends includes the documentation that Omeka provides regarding Dublin Core
usage, and the actual metadata generated by Omeka users.
675
What does it
mean to adopt
a metadata
standard?

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT