Interpretive journeys and METS
Identifieur interne : 000496 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000495; suivant : 000497Interpretive journeys and METS
Auteurs : Dennis NicholsonSource :
- Journal of Documentation [ 0022-0418 ] ; 2006-03-01.
Abstract
Purpose To report on initial work carried out on a Metadata Options Appraisal undertaken for the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park in the context of plans to create and manage complex digital objects called Interpretive Journeys, PDAbased multimedia guides to Park tours. Designmethodologyapproach After some initial work, a phased approach was adopted. In Phase I reported here, metadata schema for managing structurally complex digital objects were researched to provide a range of appropriate options. Their characteristics were then matched against the Park's general requirements as determined through discussions with staff and an examination of relevant documentation. Findings It was determined that the METS metadata schema met Park requirements for managing Interpretive Journeys at a general level and could be used both, to inform the development of the planned Digital Asset Management System an early priority, and to act as the main basis of a framework for determining a detailed metadata solution for the Park. Research limitationsimplications Further work is required in Phase II to determine the detailed metadata requirement for the Park. Practical implications A useful guide to dealing with a range of management and metadata issues associated with managing complex digital objects, and to managing projects where guidance on metadata requirements is needed before the objects to be described are available. Originalityvalue This paper offers an introduction to the management and metadata issues raised by Interpretive Journeys and digital composites of similar complexity, and an indication of how METS addresses these at a general level.
Url:
DOI: 10.1108/00220410610653334
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:9B7FBBFEB19D74544A37214F0F6CCF12CAD60769Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Interpretive journeys and METS</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Nicholson, Dennis" sort="Nicholson, Dennis" uniqKey="Nicholson D" first="Dennis" last="Nicholson">Dennis Nicholson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Centre for Digital Library Research, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:9B7FBBFEB19D74544A37214F0F6CCF12CAD60769</idno><date when="2006" year="2006">2006</date><idno type="doi">10.1108/00220410610653334</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/9B7FBBFEB19D74544A37214F0F6CCF12CAD60769/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000496</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Interpretive journeys and METS</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Nicholson, Dennis" sort="Nicholson, Dennis" uniqKey="Nicholson D" first="Dennis" last="Nicholson">Dennis Nicholson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Centre for Digital Library Research, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Journal of Documentation</title><idno type="ISSN">0022-0418</idno><imprint><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><date type="published" when="2006-03-01">2006-03-01</date><biblScope unit="volume">62</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="271">271</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="290">290</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0022-0418</idno></series><idno type="istex">9B7FBBFEB19D74544A37214F0F6CCF12CAD60769</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/00220410610653334</idno><idno type="filenameID">2780620206</idno><idno type="original-pdf">2780620206.pdf</idno><idno type="href">00220410610653334.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0022-0418</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Purpose To report on initial work carried out on a Metadata Options Appraisal undertaken for the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park in the context of plans to create and manage complex digital objects called Interpretive Journeys, PDAbased multimedia guides to Park tours. Designmethodologyapproach After some initial work, a phased approach was adopted. In Phase I reported here, metadata schema for managing structurally complex digital objects were researched to provide a range of appropriate options. Their characteristics were then matched against the Park's general requirements as determined through discussions with staff and an examination of relevant documentation. Findings It was determined that the METS metadata schema met Park requirements for managing Interpretive Journeys at a general level and could be used both, to inform the development of the planned Digital Asset Management System an early priority, and to act as the main basis of a framework for determining a detailed metadata solution for the Park. Research limitationsimplications Further work is required in Phase II to determine the detailed metadata requirement for the Park. Practical implications A useful guide to dealing with a range of management and metadata issues associated with managing complex digital objects, and to managing projects where guidance on metadata requirements is needed before the objects to be described are available. Originalityvalue This paper offers an introduction to the management and metadata issues raised by Interpretive Journeys and digital composites of similar complexity, and an indication of how METS addresses these at a general level.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>emerald</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Dennis Nicholson</name><affiliations><json:string>Centre for Digital Library Research, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Portable digital assistants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Tourism</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Data handling</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Scotland</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Purpose To report on initial work carried out on a Metadata Options Appraisal undertaken for the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park in the context of plans to create and manage complex digital objects called Interpretive Journeys, PDAbased multimedia guides to Park tours. Designmethodologyapproach After some initial work, a phased approach was adopted. In Phase I reported here, metadata schema for managing structurally complex digital objects were researched to provide a range of appropriate options. Their characteristics were then matched against the Park's general requirements as determined through discussions with staff and an examination of relevant documentation. Findings It was determined that the METS metadata schema met Park requirements for managing Interpretive Journeys at a general level and could be used both, to inform the development of the planned Digital Asset Management System an early priority, and to act as the main basis of a framework for determining a detailed metadata solution for the Park. Research limitationsimplications Further work is required in Phase II to determine the detailed metadata requirement for the Park. Practical implications A useful guide to dealing with a range of management and metadata issues associated with managing complex digital objects, and to managing projects where guidance on metadata requirements is needed before the objects to be described are available. Originalityvalue This paper offers an introduction to the management and metadata issues raised by Interpretive Journeys and digital composites of similar complexity, and an indication of how METS addresses these at a general level.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.964</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>519 x 680 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>4</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1668</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>8040</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>52069</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>20</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>247</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Interpretive journeys and METS</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>62</volume><publisherId><json:string>jd</json:string></publisherId><pages><last>290</last><first>271</first></pages><issn><json:string>0022-0418</json:string></issn><issue>2</issue><subject><json:item><value>Information & knowledge management</value></json:item><json:item><value>Information & communications technology</value></json:item><json:item><value>Information management & governance</value></json:item><json:item><value>Internet</value></json:item><json:item><value>Information management</value></json:item><json:item><value>Library & information science</value></json:item><json:item><value>Classification & cataloguing</value></json:item><json:item><value>Collection building & management</value></json:item><json:item><value>Information behaviour & retrieval</value></json:item><json:item><value>Records management & preservation</value></json:item><json:item><value>Scholarly communications/publishing</value></json:item><json:item><value>Document management</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>Journal of Documentation</title><doi><json:string>10.1108/jd</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>2006</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2006</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1108/00220410610653334</json:string></doi><id>9B7FBBFEB19D74544A37214F0F6CCF12CAD60769</id><score>0.101771325</score><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/9B7FBBFEB19D74544A37214F0F6CCF12CAD60769/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/9B7FBBFEB19D74544A37214F0F6CCF12CAD60769/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/9B7FBBFEB19D74544A37214F0F6CCF12CAD60769/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Interpretive journeys and METS</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">Determining requirements for the effective management of complex digital objects in a National Park</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><availability><p>EMERALD</p></availability><date>2006</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Interpretive journeys and METS</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">Determining requirements for the effective management of complex digital objects in a National Park</title><author><persName><forename type="first">Dennis</forename><surname>Nicholson</surname></persName><affiliation>Centre for Digital Library Research, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, UK</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Journal of Documentation</title><idno type="pISSN">0022-0418</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/jd</idno><imprint><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><date type="published" when="2006-03-01"></date><biblScope unit="volume">62</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="271">271</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="290">290</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">9B7FBBFEB19D74544A37214F0F6CCF12CAD60769</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/00220410610653334</idno><idno type="filenameID">2780620206</idno><idno type="original-pdf">2780620206.pdf</idno><idno type="href">00220410610653334.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2006</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>Purpose To report on initial work carried out on a Metadata Options Appraisal undertaken for the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park in the context of plans to create and manage complex digital objects called Interpretive Journeys, PDAbased multimedia guides to Park tours. Designmethodologyapproach After some initial work, a phased approach was adopted. In Phase I reported here, metadata schema for managing structurally complex digital objects were researched to provide a range of appropriate options. Their characteristics were then matched against the Park's general requirements as determined through discussions with staff and an examination of relevant documentation. Findings It was determined that the METS metadata schema met Park requirements for managing Interpretive Journeys at a general level and could be used both, to inform the development of the planned Digital Asset Management System an early priority, and to act as the main basis of a framework for determining a detailed metadata solution for the Park. Research limitationsimplications Further work is required in Phase II to determine the detailed metadata requirement for the Park. Practical implications A useful guide to dealing with a range of management and metadata issues associated with managing complex digital objects, and to managing projects where guidance on metadata requirements is needed before the objects to be described are available. Originalityvalue This paper offers an introduction to the management and metadata issues raised by Interpretive Journeys and digital composites of similar complexity, and an indication of how METS addresses these at a general level.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>Keywords</head><item><term>Portable digital assistants</term></item><item><term>Tourism</term></item><item><term>Data handling</term></item><item><term>Scotland</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Emerald Subject Group"><list><label>cat-IKM</label><item><term>Information & knowledge management</term></item><label>cat-ICT</label><item><term>Information & communications technology</term></item><label>cat-IMG</label><item><term>Information management & governance</term></item><label>cat-INT</label><item><term>Internet</term></item><label>cat-IMAN</label><item><term>Information management</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Emerald Subject Group"><list><label>cat-LISC</label><item><term>Library & information science</term></item><label>cat-CCAT</label><item><term>Classification & cataloguing</term></item><label>cat-CBM</label><item><term>Collection building & management</term></item><label>cat-IBRT</label><item><term>Information behaviour & retrieval</term></item><label>cat-RMP</label><item><term>Records management & preservation</term></item><label>cat-SCPG</label><item><term>Scholarly communications/publishing</term></item><label>cat-DOCM</label><item><term>Document management</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2006-03-01">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/9B7FBBFEB19D74544A37214F0F6CCF12CAD60769/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus emerald not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><!-- Auto generated NISO JATS XML created by Atypon out of MCB DTD source files. Do Not Edit! --><article dtd-version="1.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research-article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">jd</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.1108/jd</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Documentation</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">0022-0418</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1108/00220410610653334</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="original-pdf">2780620206.pdf</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="filename">2780620206</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="type-of-publication"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">research-article</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Research paper</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="subject"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-IKM</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Information & knowledge management</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-ICT</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Information & communications technology</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-INT</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Internet</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-IMG</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Information management & governance</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-IMAN</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Information management</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="subject"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LISC</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Library & information science</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-CCAT</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Classification & cataloguing</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-CBM</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Collection building & management</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-SCPG</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Scholarly communications/publishing</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-IBRT</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Information behaviour & retrieval</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-RMP</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Records management & preservation</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-DOCM</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Document management</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Interpretive journeys and METS</article-title><subtitle>Determining requirements for the effective management of complex digital objects in a National Park</subtitle></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Dennis</given-names> <surname>Nicholson</surname></string-name><aff>Centre for Digital Library Research, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, UK</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><day>01</day><month>03</month><year>2006</year></pub-date><volume>62</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>271</fpage><lpage>290</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2006</copyright-year><license license-type="publisher"><license-p></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="00220410610653334.pdf"></self-uri><abstract><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Purpose</title><x> – </x><p>To report on initial work carried out on a Metadata Options Appraisal undertaken for the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park in the context of plans to create and manage complex digital objects called Interpretive Journeys, PDA‐based multimedia guides to Park tours. <bold><bold>Design/methodology/approach</bold></bold> – After some initial work, a phased approach was adopted. In Phase I (reported here), metadata schema for managing structurally complex digital objects were researched to provide a range of appropriate options. Their characteristics were then matched against the Park's general requirements as determined through discussions with staff and an examination of relevant documentation. <bold><bold>Findings</bold></bold> – It was determined that the METS metadata schema met Park requirements for managing Interpretive Journeys at a general level and could be used both, to inform the development of the planned Digital Asset Management System (an early priority), and to act as the main basis of a framework for determining a detailed metadata solution for the Park. <bold><bold>Research limitations/implications</bold></bold> – Further work is required in Phase II to determine the detailed metadata requirement for the Park. <bold><bold>Practical implications</bold></bold> – A useful guide to dealing with a range of management and metadata issues associated with managing complex digital objects, and to managing projects where guidance on metadata requirements is needed before the objects to be described are available. <bold><bold>Originality/value</bold></bold> – This paper offers an introduction to the management and metadata issues raised by Interpretive Journeys and digital composites of similar complexity, and an indication of how METS addresses these at a general level.</p></sec></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Portable digital assistants</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Tourism</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Data handling</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Scotland</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-group><custom-meta><meta-name>peer-reviewed</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>academic-content</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>rightslink</meta-name><meta-value>included</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-group></article-meta></front><body><sec><title>Introduction</title><sec><title>The Metadata Options Appraisal</title><p><bold>T</bold>his paper deals with a Metadata Options Appraisal commissioned by the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park in Scotland in the context of a Europe‐wide project called <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b39">MoPark Project (2004)</xref>. Its remit is to look at three levels of the Park's metadata requirements: those specific to MoPark (level 1), those likely to arise if the scope of the MoPark work were extended (level 2, and those associated with the management of Park materials generally (level 3). However, since the MoPark requirements are the most complex, these have been the major focus of the work to date. The Appraisal was originally planned as a single initiative to be conducted in a number of steps (see Methodology), but a decision was taken on the basis of early findings to adopt a phased approach. This paper covers the work leading up to that decision – that is, it covers what is now Phase I of two‐phase appraisal, Phase I outcomes, and the reasons for the adoption of a phased approach.</p></sec><sec><title>MoPark and interpretive journeys</title><p>The aim of the MoPark project is to encourage green tourism in the Park by providing opportunities for sustainable travel and innovative interpretation. The interpretive facet is intended to help visitors understand and enjoy the Park's special qualities and will be delivered electronically via a variety of output devices, including personal digital assistants (PDAs), mobile phones, audio tours, and talking posts. In the case of PDAs, in particular, but perhaps also mobile phones, this will entail the creation of complex digital objects called Interpretive Journeys. These are multimedia‐based Park tours following marked out paths with a number of stops. Each stop is enhanced and interpreted for the visitor through an interactive programme consisting of still images, video and audio clips, animations, games, and text relevant to the flora, fauna, landscape formations and features, history, and culture represented at that point in the tour.</p></sec><sec><title>Interpretive journeys in other environments</title><p>In the context of the MoPark Project, an Interpretive Journey is typically a hand‐held electronic guide to a Park trail – whether it is a walk in the woods or a trip on a solar boat. However, the potential of this kind of digital multimedia presentation as a means of enhancing an individual's experience and understanding of a range of environments is clearly significant. Leisure and recreation environments – parks, museums, tourist‐trails, and similar – are probably the most likely areas of application. Education and other forms of training are another. This being so, the use of such packages seems likely to grow, which means that there is likely to be a increasing demand from a range of organisation‐types for information scientists who can advise on the issues covered in this paper – that is, on the problems raised by Interpretive Journeys and similar multimedia programmes, on the metadata required to adequately describe them, and on the design and operation of digital repository software to house and manage both.</p></sec><sec><title>Interpretive journeys as highly structured digital content</title><p>Interpretive Journeys (and other similar packages) are not simply collections of component digital objects with a common theme or a related set of such themes. They are pieces of highly structured digital content whose function, value, and meaning would be largely lost if their structure was lost – just as the function, value, and meaning of a book would be lost if it were cut up into paragraphs or sentences presented in randomised order. This means that the metadata required to manage them must, amongst other things, be able to capture and describe that structure, particularly if, as is envisaged in MoPark, there is (or may be) a requirement to disseminate these complex digital objects to other repositories, or to ensure their long‐term digital preservation. In the case of MoPark, for example, the metadata must be able to capture and describe structural elements such as the sequential and hierarchical nature of the journey, and the inter‐relationships between component digital objects at different sequential or hierarchical levels (for example, a map that can be called up at any journey stop and which itself has hierarchical levels in the shape of a ‘zoom in’ to a more detailed map, a key to the map, and so on).</p></sec><sec><title>Objectives of the Metadata Options Appraisal</title><p>The Appraisal has two objectives. The first is to determine the metadata requirements for the Park's proposed digital repository in the context of the ongoing use and long‐term management of these and other digital objects, looking at:<list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>MoPark project requirements (Level 1).</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>Requirements if MoPark is extended to other topics and Park areas (Level 2).</p></list-item><list-item><label>3. </label><p>General requirements of the National Park beyond MoPark (Level 3).</p></list-item></list>The second is to make recommendations on the implementation of the digital repository, taking in issues such as metadata schema options, staffing requirements, training, and the design of the proposed Digital Asset Management System (DAMS). Although Interpretive Journeys are not the only digital objects of interest in the Appraisal, they are, by far, the most complex, and were, therefore, the primary focus of the initial work. More precisely, written and spoken descriptions of the Park's plans for the creation of such journeys were the initial focus of the work, since, in the original plan, the appraiser was charged with identifying the metadata requirements before the actual Interpretive Journeys were available.</p><p>This, of course, was a less than ideal circumstance in which to conduct the Appraisal. Following discussion, however, it became clear that it was unavoidable. Park staff required some guidance on metadata requirements if they were to specify their requirements for the Digital Asset Management System to the software designers and programmers, and the project schedule did not permit the long delay involved in waiting for the creation of the actual Interpretive Journeys. The appraiser was therefore faced with a requirement to deal with the situation, ideal or not – a real world circumstance which led to the proposal for the phased approach described below, and one which may well be encountered in other organisations as the digital revolution gathers pace.</p></sec></sec><sec><title>Digital repositories and metadata</title><p>Digitisation programmes, as well as individual initiatives, have been something of a growth area in recent times (see, for example, the NOF Digi programme's database of projects (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b42">New Opportunities Fund, 2003</xref>), the sites of the members of the Digital Library Federation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b18">Digital Library Federation, 2004</xref>), and the Register of Digital Initiatives in New Zealand (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b40">National Digital Forum, 2004</xref>)). One result of this is that it is possible to draw upon a good deal of readily available experience and expertise in respect of the management of digital objects when considering metadata options. Another is that there is a wide (and apparently still growing) range of metadata schema designed for use with digital objects and repositories available to choose from: DC, MODS, e‐GMS, TEI, METS, EAD, MPEG‐7, SCORM, MPEG‐21, IMS‐CP, MARCXML, MIX, to name only a few of those available (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b38">MetaMap, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b41">National Information Standards Organization, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b21">Farb and Riggio, 2004</xref>).</p><p>Fortunately, it was clear at an early stage of the Appraisal that the list of possible schema choices could be reduced considerably by focusing on digital repository initiatives dealing with composite digital objects whose complexity was of an order similar to that of MoPark Interpretive Journeys. Consideration of the issues encountered in such projects (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">Alemneh <italic>et al.</italic>, 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b6 b7">Bekaert 2003, 2004</xref>; Chandler, 2002; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b13 b14">Chen, 2000, 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b21">Farb and Riggio, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b25">Guenther and McCallum, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b49">Proffitt, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b54">Staples <italic>et al.</italic>, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b57">Tennant, 2003a</xref>), and of the kinds of metadata schema employed to deal with them, allowed the list of possible schema relevant to MoPark to be narrowed to those capable of managing structured content – the defining feature of complex digital objects like Interpretive Journeys. With proprietary solutions considered inappropriate and unwise because of a likely long‐term need to interoperate with other repositories in Scotland and beyond, the range of possibilities to choose from was narrowed to METS, MPEG‐21, and IMS‐CP, three options which, whilst not directly comparable in respect of their primary purpose, are recognised as roughly interchangeable standards for managing structured content (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b43">New York University Libraries, 2004</xref>), and are used as such by the various projects examined in the Appraisal:</p><sec><title>METS</title><p>The Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) is a schema developed following ground breaking work at the University of California Digital Library in the context of the Making of America II project (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b16">Cundiff, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b41">National Information Standards Organization, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Coalition for Networked Information, 2003</xref>). Maintained by the Library of Congress (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b32">Library of Congress, 2004a</xref>), it has the support of the influential Digital Library Federation, and is designed to be used with a range of “extension schemas” such as MODS, MIX, MARCXML and TextMD (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b16">Cundiff, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b33 b34">Library of Congress (2004b, c)</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b48">Ockerbloom <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b57">Tennant, 2003a</xref>). In use in, or recommended by, a growing range of initiatives (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b16">Cundiff, 2004</xref>; Chandler, 2002; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b25">Guenther and McCallum, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b28">Institute of Museum and Library Services, 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b46">Niu, 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b49">Proffitt, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b51">Semple, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b54">Staples <italic>et al.</italic>, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b55">Stehno, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b57">Tennant, 2003a</xref>), METS is also an integral part of at least one digital library management package (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b54">Staples <italic>et al.</italic>, 2003</xref>) and was at the time of the work reportedly being considered for future use in MIT's widely‐implemented DSpace software (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b53">Smith <italic>et al.</italic>, 2003</xref>).</p></sec><sec><title>MPEG‐21</title><p>MPEG‐21 is a Moving Picture Expert Group standard (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b29">International Organisation for Standardisation, 2002</xref>), expected to be a preferred approach in the commercial sector (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Coalition for Networked Information, 2003</xref>). It was found to be less developed than METS (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Coalition for Networked Information, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b48">Ockerbloom <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004</xref>) and to be in use in one repository (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b6 b7">Bekaert (2003, 2004)</xref>).</p></sec><sec><title>IMS‐CP</title><p>IMS‐CP, the IMS content packaging standard (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b27">IMS Global Learning Consortium Inc., 2004</xref>), is designed for use in the learning community, a community that MoPark will at least look to interoperate with. IMS‐CP is in use in various projects (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b3 b4 b5">Australian Flexible Learning Framework, 2004a, b, c</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Coalition for Networked Information, 2003</xref>, p19), and is recognised as the learning community's alternative to METS and MPEG‐21 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Coalition for Networked Information, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b48">Ockerbloom <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004</xref>). SCORM (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b1">Advanced Distributed Learning, 2004</xref>), another learning community solution also based on IMS specifications (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Coalition for Networked Information, 2003</xref>) is also in use (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b36">Lubas, 2004</xref>). However, by the time it was identified as a possible candidate, it had already been agreed that the proposed future MoPark connection with the learning community was a relatively weak one and that there was no need to assess SCORM as one of the options.</p></sec></sec><sec><title>Methodology</title><sec><title>Metadata and effective management of the digital repository</title><p>From the start, it was recognised that the underlying aim in conducting the Appraisal was to determine the requirement for the effective management of the proposed digital repository and the digital materials it would contain. The metadata requirements of any system are primarily related to function. In order to determine the metadata requirements for MoPark and for the National Park, therefore, it was first necessary to determine the needs in respect of handling or managing digital information and information products; that is, to determine which things needed to be done to, or, with what information and information products, by or for whom, in what circumstances (when, how, where), and for what purpose (why) in order to meet the management and service requirements of the system (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b41">National Information Standards Organization, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b26">Haynes, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b21">Farb and Riggio, 2004</xref>). It was also necessary to consider other issues affecting decisions on approaches to metadata: resources available for implementation and ongoing management, existing constraints in terms of the existence of legacy metadata repositories and legacy systems used by organisational partners, the need to interoperate with services outwith the group of organisational partners, and so on (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Coalition for Networked Information, 2003</xref>, p. 23). Key requirements of a successful study were therefore an examination of representative examples of the various kinds of digital objects that would have to be managed and in‐depth discussions with Park staff on the management issues the various types of object would entail.</p></sec><sec><title>Initial methodology</title><p>A methodology for conducting the Appraisal was agreed in the early stages of discussions on project requirements. This consisted of the following steps:<list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>Participation in an initial briefing session with the client group and suppliers.</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>An initial analysis of the outcomes, followed by an in‐depth consultation with project leaders on information needs, the amount and level of cataloguing required, the types of digital object likely to be stored and presented, the likely modes of presentation of these within interpretative journeys, and any requirements to access distributed information sources and integrate with other repositories, either now or in future.</p></list-item><list-item><label>3. </label><p>An in‐depth examination – via the literature and online examinations of sites – of a range of internal project and Park documents on issues relating to, or having an impact on, metadata needs.</p></list-item><list-item><label>4. </label><p>The creation of an outline, but detailed, sketch of the scope and complexity of the likely general needs of the project and the National Park in respect of metadata for digital objects.</p></list-item><list-item><label>5. </label><p>An examination of prominent global digital library initiatives and the metadata issues and solutions adopted by them.</p></list-item><list-item><label>6. </label><p>The identification of a digital object metadata framework sufficiently complex and flexible to meet the needs of the MoPark project and the National Park.</p></list-item><list-item><label>7. </label><p>The identification of a range of areas and issues requiring further investigation before the detailed metadata requirements of the project and the Park could be specified.</p></list-item><list-item><label>8. </label><p>The creation of a set of detailed questions that had to be answered – primarily by Park staff in discussion with the appraiser – in order to draw out and agree the detailed requirement.</p></list-item><list-item><label>9. </label><p>A specification of the detailed requirement</p></list-item><list-item><label>10. </label><p>The drawing up of recommendations on associated issues such as staffing and training requirements, costs, and the metadata management facilities required in the DAMS.</p></list-item></list></p></sec><sec><title>The need for a phased approach</title><p>In the event, the methodology had to be adjusted to take account of the information that emerged from the early part of the study. By the completion of step 4 of the process described above, two things were clear. First, that there was sufficient detail available from initial discussions with key MoPark and Park personnel (step 1), from follow‐up discussions with project leaders (step 2), and from project and Park documentation (step 3), to enable, both the general needs of the project and Park in respect of digital object metadata (steps 4‐6), and the further work needed to draw out the full requirement (steps 6‐8), to be specified in the timescale originally envisaged for this work. Second, that specifying the need in detail (step 9), together with associated staffing and training needs and detailed DAMS requirements (step 10), would be more difficult. It would require, at minimum, further work with actual examples of the complex digital objects (Interpretive Journey<italic>s</italic>) likely to form the primary elements of the Level 1 and 2 requirements, more experience amongst project and Park personnel of the issues and problems associated with managing complex digital objects, and an in‐depth survey of the likely range of other digital objects, their usage, and their life‐cycles.</p><p>Since the original assumption made by MoPark had been that the metadata requirement might be specified prior to the creation of the initial Interpretive Journeys and their use in the field, it was necessary to agree an adjusted methodology with project staff. This entailed adopting a phased approach to the completion of the Appraisal, with Phase I setting out, both a general framework within which the full requirement could be met, and the elements of the follow‐up phase, and Phase II stretching out over the full lifetime of the project (three years) and gradually specifying the detailed requirement as actual Interpretive Journeys emerged and were field‐tested, and as staff familiarity with these objects and understanding of the management issues they entailed, grew. This paper, of necessity, reports only on the outcomes of Phase I of this process. The outcomes of Phase II will be reported at a later date.</p></sec></sec><sec><title>MoPark: general requirements</title><p>The completion of step 4 – the creation of an outline, but detailed, sketch of the scope and complexity of the likely general needs of the project and the National Park in respect of metadata for digital objects – produced the following agreed conclusions as regards general requirements:</p><sec><title>Interpretive journeys</title><p>The primary need is to deal with Interpretive Journeys. These are complex digital objects comprising coherent aggregates of a range of simpler constituent digital objects in a variety of formats. They will require a metadata framework that encompasses:<list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>Descriptive metadata (e.g. a MARC record) for both the aggregate object and the constituent objects.</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>Administrative metadata for both – including technical detail on format and use characteristics, intellectual property rights information, descriptive and administrative metadata on the analogue source of the digital object, digital provenance metadata.</p></list-item><list-item><label>3. </label><p>Metadata on the files encompassed by the aggregate object.</p></list-item><list-item><label>4. </label><p>Metadata on the hierarchical structure of the digital object and on hyperlinks between levels (structural metadata).</p></list-item><list-item><label>5. </label><p>Metadata on executable programs required to run some of the constituent digital objects.</p></list-item></list></p></sec><sec><title>User‐type specific variations</title><p>User‐type specific variations are an issue. It is envisaged that different types of Park visitor will be presented with different versions of each Interpretive Journey and that these versions will themselves vary according to visitor choice of, for example, preferred terrain, and mode of transport. It is not clear at this stage whether each journey will be one single aggregate object or many similar, but different, aggregates. Either way, the metadata framework will have to be sufficiently flexible to cope with the inter‐relationships involved and the complex management issues entailed.</p></sec><sec><title>Output‐device‐specific variations</title><p>The issues described in the two points above are further complicated by the fact that different presentations of the various Interpretive Journeys are likely to be required for a range of different output modes (PDAs, web‐sites, mobile phones, and others).</p></sec><sec><title>Workflow control</title><p>Workflow control during the digital object management process is needed to ensure that accuracy, legal, metadata quality, and other requirements are met. The creation and management of Interpretive Journeys is likely to involve a range of Park personnel with different skills and expertise and this will have implications in respect of the need for a range of record statuses and the ability to monitor staff involvement in upkeep and creation in the metadata. Issues like information currency, accuracy, authority, access rights, metadata quality, and so on will make such involvement necessary and make workflow control and associated metadata needs essential elements of a working system</p></sec><sec><title>Format variations</title><p>Initial discussions suggest that the constituent digital objects that will make up the detail of the Interpretive Journeys are likely to be in a wide range of formats, including (but not necessarily limited to), textual materials, audio material, video materials, still images, animated sequences, 3D animations, 3D and 2D maps, interactive packages of various kinds. Any framework will have to be able to deal with the metadata requirements associated with each.</p></sec><sec><title>GPS issues</title><p>Special software will be needed to handle some of the constituent digital objects involved in an Interpretive Journey and it will have to be possible to specify this in the metadata framework. Included in this requirement is the need to obtain and respond to GPS data and to interact with an external GIS database system and repository.</p></sec><sec><title>Referencing descriptive metadata</title><p>It is likely that the descriptive metadata required for the aggregates and the constituent objects will in some cases be held on external systems (e.g. maps metadata and, possibly, MARC or Dublin Core metadata). In other cases, it may need to be embedded in the record for the object itself. The metadata framework will have to be able to handle either or both situations</p></sec><sec><title>Flexibility</title><p>The range and nature of digital objects likely to be managed when the needs of the Park as a whole are taken into account is at present unknown in detail. The framework adopted must therefore be flexible and wide‐ranging to enable it to cope with future requirements</p></sec><sec><title>Digital preservation</title><p>There will, in time, be a need to preserve some or all of the digital objects in the repository, so the metadata framework adopted must be able to deal with this likelihood.</p></sec><sec><title>Mapping to different metadata standards; XML output</title><p>A need to present or otherwise disseminate the metadata in various forms and various formats for different purposes in different situations is envisaged. Possible requirements in this respect include the need to interoperate with Library, Museum and (possibly) Archive community systems in Scotland<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1">1</xref>, to exchange data with other Parks or project partners in other countries, to meet the requirements of e‐GIF, the e‐Government Interoperability Framework (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b8">Broadley, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b9">Cabinet Office, Office of the e‐Envoy, 2004a</xref>) and, in particular, e‐GMS the e‐Government Metadata Schema (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b10">Cabinet Office, Office of the e‐Envoy, 2004b</xref>). It would be wise to allow for the use of a variety of standards, of mapping to different standards, and output in various formats. Either storing the metadata in XML (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b60">W3C, 2004</xref>) format or permitting its export and import in XML is advisable. Adopting national and international standards where possible is also advisable.</p></sec></sec><sec><title>METS: a framework for Phase II; clarification on methodology</title><p>The methodology detailed earlier in this paper implies a linear progression from the identification of the elements of the general requirements (step 4), through the investigation of metadata solutions adopted elsewhere (step 5), to the identification of a digital objects metadata framework (step 6) capable of meeting the requirement identified in step 4. Although this is essentially the process followed, the actual progression from requirement to framework was less clear‐cut. In reality, an initial sketch of the requirement, together with an investigation of solutions adopted elsewhere, led to the identification of the METS standard, maintained by the Library of Congress, as a likely solution for the Park. This then helped focus further work on the requirement and on solutions adopted elsewhere, leading gradually, in consultation with project and Park staff, to the confirmation of both the final details of the general requirement<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn2">2</xref> and the suitability of METS as the metadata framework that best meets that requirement.</p></sec><sec><title>METS: points in favour</title><p>By the completion of step 5, it was clear that METS has a number of points in its favour as the schema most able to meet Park requirements in respect of a framework. In summary, these are as follows:<list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p><italic>It is designed for complex digital objects, XML‐based, and internationally supported</italic>. The METS: Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard is a new standard that has been developed specifically to provide an overall framework within which metadata for all types of digital materials – digitised video, sound files still images, electronic texts, and others – can be integrated. Expressed in the World Wide Web Consortium's XML schema language and maintained by the Network Development and MARC Standards Office of the Library of Congress, it provides a flexible and coherent framework within which to meet MoPark and National Park digital materials metadata requirements as detailed above. There is an official METS web site (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b32">Library of Congress, 2004a</xref>) with good support and training information and the JISC web site (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b30">Joint Information Systems Committee, 2004</xref>) also has information on the standard (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b22">Gartner, 2002</xref>) and on MODS (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b23">Gartner, 2003</xref>) an accredited METS extension schema covering descriptive metadata.</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p><italic>It meets the complex range of requirements identified as relevant to MoPark needs.</italic> METS aims to provide an XML document format for encoding metadata necessary for both the management of digital library objects within a repository and the exchange of such objects between repositories (or between repositories and their users). It caters for all of the types of metadata (descriptive, administrative, structural, executable behaviors etc) used to describe digital library objects. It permits both the embedding of the metadata within the document and the referencing of externally held metadata (which may be a MoPark requirement). Hierarchical structures and links between levels can be encoded and pointers to software required to run particular constituent objects can be specified. Since the data is held in XML format, it is platform and software independent and should be readily exchangeable with partners and cooperating organisations. The schema is a new one but has, as already indicated, been adopted by a number of digital library projects.</p></list-item><list-item><label>3. </label><p><italic>It is the most widely used and appropriate of the three relevant standards identified.</italic> Of the three options – METS, IMS‐CP, and MPEG‐21 – identified by the Appraisal as potentially suitable for dealing with complex digital objects of the kind envisaged in MoPark:</p></list-item></list><list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>MPEG‐21 was found to be in very limited use when the assessment was conducted (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b6 b7">Bekaert 2003, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Coalition for Networked Information, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b48">Ockerbloom <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004</xref>). It was also largely unfinished and seen as a solution for the commercial sector.</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>IMS‐CP was found to be in wider use. However, it was created for the purpose of dealing with learning‐oriented materials (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Coalition for Networked Information, 2003</xref>) and, whilst Interpretive Journeys do have an educational element, they are not seen primarily as course materials or as learning packages.</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>METS was found to be in wide use by a variety of significant initiatives and prominent organisations in the Library, Museum and Archive domains (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b16">Cundiff, 2004</xref>; Chandler, 2002; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b25">Guenther and McCallum, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b28">Institute of Museum and Library Services, 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b46">Niu, 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b49">Proffitt, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b51">Semple, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b54">Staples <italic>et al.</italic>, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b55">Stehno, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b57">Tennant, 2003a</xref>) and is designed for managing complex digital objects in digital repositories (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Coalition for Networked Information, 2003</xref>).</p></list-item></list><list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>It is supported by key organisations and regarded as a stable standard. The use of METS by major organisations such as Library of Congress, the British Library, Research Libraries Group, and the Digital Library Federation itself, means that METS is supported by significant “players” in digital object management, an important consideration for the Park, given the likely need for collaboration and interoperability in future. There are also indications that METS is considered stable enough for submission to formal standards bodies such as ISO and NISO (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b25">Guenther and McCallum, 2003</xref>).</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p><italic>It has available a growing community of practice, and good support documentation.</italic> The existence of a community of users or potential users, some of whom (The British Library, Oxford University (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b16">Cundiff, 2004</xref>), The National Library of Wales (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b25">Guenther and McCallum, 2003</xref>), Edinburgh University (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b51">Semple, 2004</xref>)) are in the UK is an important consideration, as is the availability of good documentation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b35">Library of Congress Help Desk, 2003</xref>) and simplified accounts of its place in the scheme of things (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b56 b58 b59">Tennant, 2004, 2003b, 2002</xref>). As RLG puts it (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b49">Proffitt, 2004</xref>, p. 2) “METS provides us with a standard to follow and an active community of colleagues with whom to confer on issues unique to this topic”.</p></list-item><list-item><label>3. </label><p><italic>In METS, Interpretive Journey stops can be treated as individual complex objects.</italic> It is possible to create hierarchies of METS documents (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b16">Cundiff, 2004</xref>), a possible issue for MoPark, given that Interpretive Journeys are made up of a variety of “stops”, each of which comprises a complex digital object in its own right and might be used either as a stand‐alone package in some circumstances, or as a component in more than one Interpretive Journey (where walks overlap, for example).</p></list-item><list-item><label>4. </label><p><italic>It can be used as a comprehensive framework for Phase II then discarded if desired.</italic> The aim is to use METS as a framework that would ensure the iterative approach proposed would be comprehensive. It would be feasible to discard it later should the detailed requirements suggest this to be advisable for some reason.</p></list-item><list-item><label>5. </label><p><italic>The possible future need for interaction with the learning community is provided for.</italic> Although use of IMS‐CP itself is not considered appropriate, it is envisaged that there would in time be a need to interoperate with the learning community. The existence of initial work on a mapping between METS and IMS‐CP is therefore considered a useful development (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b48">Ockerbloom <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b62">Yee, 2004</xref>)</p></list-item><list-item><label>6. </label><p><italic>METS can deal with hardcopy materials if necessary.</italic> By the time the framework was being considered, it had become clear that the DAMS might have to deal with hardcopy books, journals and reports. There are indications that METS would be able to cope with this (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b56">Tennant, 2004</xref>).</p></list-item><list-item><label>7. </label><p><italic>It is able to deal with digital preservation requirements.</italic> Long‐term preservation of digital assets is an issue for the Park and metadata is a key part of any solution (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">Alemneh <italic>et al.</italic>, 2002</xref>). Many different approaches to preservation metadata exist (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b20">ERPANET, 2003</xref>). METS could provide one solution, in that METS documents could serve as “Information Packages” – containers of context information and preservation description information – within the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) reference model (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b11">CCSDS, 2001</xref>), a proposed architecture for the preservation of digital materials that has either informed, or been explicitly adopted by, many prominent digital preservation initiatives (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b47">OCLC/RLG Working Group on Preservation Metadata, 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b25">Guenther and McCallum, 2003</xref>). In fact, METS was designed to work with OAIS (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Coalition for Networked Information, 2003</xref>, p. 20).</p></list-item><list-item><label>8. </label><p><italic>Open source software for handling METS metadata is available if required.</italic> Although the approach was subsequently rejected, the availability of open source software capable of handling METS (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b54">Staples <italic>et al.</italic>, 2003</xref>), or likely to be able to handle it in future (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b53">Smith <italic>et al.</italic>, 2003</xref>) was also seen as a positive factor when the decision was made.</p></list-item><list-item><label>9. </label><p><italic>Looked at in detail, METS is a Good Fit for MoPark requirements.</italic> Specific points in favour of METS as the basis of a solution for MoPark can be seen by considering some of the ways in which the various elements of a METS document (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b16">Cundiff, 2004</xref>) apply to the MoPark general requirement detailed above.</p></list-item><list-item><label>10. </label><p><italic>The METS Header</italic> contains metadata describing the METS document itself, including such information as creator, staff involved in creation and maintenance and their roles, and record status. This might enable some MoPark requirements as regards staff roles and metadata and digital object maintenance workflows to be managed.</p></list-item><list-item><label>11. </label><p><italic>The descriptive metadata section</italic> holds or points to pieces of metadata describing an aggregate digital object and its constituent parts. In the MoPark context, it might contain a section pointing to descriptive metadata for Park area maps held on another server, another pointing to a MARC database containing records describing MoPark digital content at the aggregate or interpretive journey level, and several embedded sections containing actual descriptive metadata for the videos and sound files and images that are the parts of the interpretive journey.</p></list-item><list-item><label>12. </label><p><italic>The administrative metadata section </italic>has four sub‐sections: technical metadata (information regarding a digital object file's creation, format, and use characteristics), intellectual property rights metadata (copyright and license information), source metadata (descriptive and administrative metadata regarding the analog source from which a digital library object derives), and digital provenance metadata (information regarding source/destination relationships between files, including master/derivative relationships between files and information regarding migrations/transformations employed on files between original digitisation of an artifact and its current incarnation as a digital library object). MoPark and the National Park would definitely require the first two of these types, and would probably require the last type (for digital preservation purposes). Further investigation is required to determine whether it would require metadata on the analog source of digitised objects, but it is possible that it will, and the section is, in any case, optional.</p></list-item><list-item><label>13. </label><p><italic>The files metadata </italic>section lists, references and gives unique identification numbers to, the constituent electronic files of a digital object and would permit the details of the various constituent digital objects of an Interpretive Journey to be listed and referenced.</p></list-item><list-item><label>14. </label><p><italic>The structural map metadata </italic>section records information on the structure of a digital object. It would store information on the complex structure of an Interpretive Journey – hierarchical levels and sub‐levels and so on. It would be a key part of Interpretive Journey metadata – the main thing required to turn an otherwise loosely connected set of constituent digital objects into a coherent journey.</p></list-item><list-item><label>15. </label><p><italic>The structural links metadata </italic>section records information on links between hierarchical levels of digital composites. This would store information about links between hierarchical levels of an interpretive journey. For example, a link from texts describing a native bird on one web‐page to a lower web page offering an image, a sound file of the bird's song, and an video of it nesting (and probably back again).</p></list-item><list-item><label>16. </label><p><italic>The behaviour metadata </italic>section records executable behaviours associated with “playing” a constituent digital object. This would store information about executable behaviours associated with constituent parts of an interpretive journey and about the programs required to run them – for example the name and location of a program required to run a video sequence or an animation.</p></list-item><list-item><label>17. </label><p>An additional point in its favour is the increasing availability of METS extension schemas designed to deal with a range of digital object types (text files, sound files, images, video files) in commonly accepted ways (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b24">Guenther, 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b33">Library of Congress, 2004b</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b37">McCallum, 2004</xref>).</p></list-item></list></p></sec><sec><title>Other elements of the framework; Phase II</title><sec><title>Other elements of the framework</title><p>In addition to the proposal to adopt METS as the basis for the framework for Phase II, two further recommendations were made on the basis of the analysis of general requirements itemised above.<list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>That the framework should assume the adoption, where possible and appropriate, of national and international standards relevant to the field. For example, in respect of descriptive metadata, it is sensible to investigate whether the use of Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) on the one hand, and of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system on the other, provide the best basis for subject description and classification of MoPark and Park digital materials. A good deal of work is going on as regards interoperability in Scotland (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b19">Dunsire and Macgregor, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b31">Law <italic>et al.</italic>, 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b100">Nicholson and Macgregor, 2003</xref>) and this has recognised the significance of the HILT project, which has DDC and LCSH as key schemes (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b44">Nicholson, 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b52">Shiri <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004</xref>).</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>The framework should allow for and facilitate cooperation with other key players with similar needs and interests to harmonise approaches and ensure interoperability beyond Park systems. An obvious partner in this area is the Scottish Cultural Portal Project (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b101">Winch, 2003</xref>), which has similar aims in a number of areas and an overlap in terms of client groups served. An example of possible cooperation here would be in the area of subject terminology. Even if LCSH were used as the basis of MoPark subject description, it is likely that it would have to be adapted and important that adaptations be harmonised with those made by other Scottish players. This and other related matters should be explored during Phase II, at which time other possible partners may also be identified. For example, it would be sensible to determine whether there is a need to work with other bodies engaged in providing digital learning materials to schools.</p></list-item></list></p></sec><sec><title>Phase II</title><p>As will be evident, the METS‐based framework proposed above provides a suitable framework within which to meet the metadata requirements of MoPark and the Park. As indicated earlier, however, there are problems in identifying the detailed requirement at this point in project development – problems that cannot be readily resolved through discussion and analysis as yet. Moving forward will require – at minimum – further work with actual examples of the complex digital objects (Interpretive Journeys) likely to form the primary elements of the Level 1 and 2 requirements, more experience amongst project and Park personnel of the issues and problems associated with managing complex digital objects, and an in‐depth survey of the likely range of other digital objects, their usage, and their life‐cycles.</p><p>A phased approach to determining the detailed requirements as regards metadata, metadata standards, and metadata management is therefore both necessary and sensible. This approach has been discussed and agreed with the project leaders and will be reported in a later paper.</p></sec></sec><sec><title>Discussion</title><p>Two points of interest worth noting emerged from the initial stages of the Appraisal process. First, whilst this type of phased approach to the determination of metadata requirements will not be either appropriate or necessary in all cases, it is likely to be of value in cases with similarities to the MoPark situation. Specifically, where:<list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>The approach is practical, being no immediate pressure to create large numbers of metadata records quickly.</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>The approach is necessary and beneficial, because:</p></list-item></list><list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>The objects to be described are not available for examination and some aspects of their nature are unclear.</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>The staff who will have to manage them have insufficient familiarity with them – and the issues they are likely to raise – to respond appropriately to an investigator's questions regarding management requirements.</p></list-item></list>The author is aware of at least one other current project (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b17">DIDET Project, 2004</xref>) where similar conditions apply and where a similar phased approach is both appropriate and necessary.</p><p>The challenge in MoPark – and one that is likely to arise in other, similar, projects – was to convince the project team that a phased approach need not threaten project scheduling. The initial assumption of the MoPark team had been that metadata requirements would be determined in the first few months of the project, would inform the design of the DAMS, and inform the training of the staff who would use it to manage the digital repository. This would have allowed management processes to begin as soon as the digital objects became available to catalogue – around the end of year 1 of the project.</p><p>In the event, it was relatively easy to persuade the team, not only that this approach was neither possible nor in the best interests of the project, but also that it was, given their circumstances, not necessary. Only two of the complex Interpretive Journeys were likely to be available by the end of year 1 – and, whilst these would comprise, between them, much larger numbers of component digital objects, the pressure to create metadata quickly to manage them was not as great as initially proposed. Implications for the design of the DAMS were an issue, but this issue too was resolved easily enough. METS provided an indication of the likely types of metadata, of the likely need to be able to output the metadata as a METS document in XML, and of the need to allow a Park DAMS administrator to add new fields as required under each metadata type within DAMS. This was more than enough to inform the initial work on the system prototype – particularly when combined with other facilities likely to be needed in any such system (in‐context help, error checking, authority control, and so on).</p><p>Second, a working assumption was formulated that will inform the development and field‐testing of both the DAMS and (albeit to a lesser extent) the detailed metadata requirements as they emerge. This is that a key requirement for the effective management of the digital composites called Interpretive Journeys is the creation of an online environment for metadata management that will not be a barrier in any sense<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn3">3</xref> to the individual and collective application of staff expertise to the level required for the various tasks entailed in managing these composite materials and their constituent digital objects.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusion</title><p>Within the timescale allotted for the original Metadata Options Appraisal it has been possible to determine the general requirements of MoPark and the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park in respect of metadata, metadata standards, and metadata management, and to identify a framework within which these requirements can be met.</p><p>Since early analysis suggests that it will not be feasible to determine all of the detail of the requirement without creating and field‐testing at least one of the proposed Interpretive Journeys, and that fully determining the requirements in respect of the other two levels (and Level 3 requirements in particular) will face similar (but longer term) difficulties, a phased approach to agreeing the full and detailed requirement was recommended. Phase 1:<list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>Set out a framework within which the full requirement can safely develop.</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>Proposed a flexible forward development path that will progressively facilitate the specification of detailed metadata‐related needs for Levels 1, 2, and 3 and ultimately lead to the determination of the full requirement.</p></list-item></list>The framework proposed has three elements:<list list-type="order"><list-item><label>1. </label><p>Adoption of the XML‐based Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) developed as an initiative of the Digital Library Federation and maintained in the Network Development and MARC Standards Office of the Library of Congress. METS provides an integrated and coherent infrastructure for all of the metadata types likely to be required within MoPark and the Park – descriptive metadata, administrative metadata (technical metadata, rights metadata, analogue source information, digital object files provenance), Files metadata, Structural Map metadata, Structural Links metadata, and Behaviour metadata. It also provides for the levels of complexity, structure, and interoperability likely to be required as the digital repository progresses.</p></list-item><list-item><label>2. </label><p>The adoption, where possible and appropriate, of national and international standards relevant to the field (for example, the METS format would allow the use of MARC and LCSH in the descriptive metadata section should Phase II establish the requirement).</p></list-item><list-item><label>3. </label><p>Cooperation with other key players with similar needs and interests to harmonise approaches and ensure interoperability beyond Park systems (for example, the Scottish Cultural Portal project which has needs and a client group that overlap with those of MoPark).</p></list-item></list>This framework will guide Phase II of the Appraisal, the results of which will be reported in a later paper.</p></sec></body><back><fn-group><title>Notes</title><fn id="fn1"><p>Required to allow visitors at Visitor Centre web sites to explore cultural, historical or scientific themes on other Scottish systems or, indeed, potential visitors to find links from external web sites to Park Interpretive Journeys</p></fn><fn id="fn2"><p>This is reflected in the final statement of the general requirement, particularly conclusion 1, which closely follows the METS metadata types pattern.</p></fn><fn id="fn3"><p>“In any sense” is taken to encompass a wide range of aspects, including the need for staff to be able to switch seamlessly from managing complex digital objects and their constituent parts to managing other digital objects outwith Interpretive Journeys and even hard‐copy materials such as books.</p></fn></fn-group><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="b1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Advanced Distributed Learning</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), <source><italic>SCORM Overview</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.adlnet.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=scormabt">www.adlnet.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=scormabt</ext-link> (accessed 17 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Alemneh</surname>, <given-names>D.G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <italic>et al.</italic>, (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>A metadata approach to preservation of digital resources: the University of North Texas Libraries' experience</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>First Monday</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>7</volume> No. <issue>8</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_8/alemneh/index.html">http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_8/alemneh/index.html</ext-link> (accessed 13 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b3"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Australian Flexible Learning Framework</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004a</year>), <source><italic>Content Packaging</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.flexiblelearning.net.au/interop/topics/packaging.htm">www.flexiblelearning.net.au/interop/topics/packaging.htm</ext-link>#1 (accessed 17 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b4"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Australian Flexible Learning Framework</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004b</year>), <source><italic>Projects: Learning Object Repository Implementation</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://flexiblelearning.net.au/projects/learningobjectimplementation.htm">http://flexiblelearning.net.au/projects/learningobjectimplementation.htm</ext-link> (accessed 17 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b5"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Australian Flexible Learning Framework</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004c</year>), <source><italic>Projects: Quality e‐Learning Resources</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://flexiblelearning.net.au/projects/toolboxes2004.htm">http://flexiblelearning.net.au/projects/toolboxes2004.htm</ext-link> (accessed 17 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b6"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bekaert</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <italic>et al.</italic> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Using MPEG‐21 DIDL to represent complex digital objects in the Los Alamos National Laboratory Digital Library</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>D‐Lib Magazine</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>9</volume> No. <issue>11</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november03/bekaert/11bekaert.html">www.dlib.org/dlib/november03/bekaert/11bekaert.html</ext-link> (accessed 13 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b7"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bekaert</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <italic>et al.</italic> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Using MPEG‐21 DIP and NISO OpenURL for the dynamic dissemination of complex digital objects in the Los Alamos National Laboratory Digital Library</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>D‐Lib Magazine</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>10</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/february04/bekaert/02bekaert.html">www.dlib.org/dlib/february04/bekaert/02bekaert.html</ext-link> (accessed 13 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b8"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Broadley</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Metadata and the e‐GMS</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Update</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>3</volume> Nos <issue>7‐8</issue>, pp. <fpage>32</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>3</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b9"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cabinet Office</surname>, <given-names>Office o</given-names><given-names>f t</given-names><given-names>he e‐Envoy</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004a</year>), <source><italic>e‐Government Interoperability Framework Version 6.0</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents/e-gif-v6-0.pdf">www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents/e‐gif‐v6‐0.pdf</ext-link> (accessed 15 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b10"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cabinet Office</surname>, <given-names>Office o</given-names><given-names>f t</given-names><given-names>he e‐Envoy</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004b</year>), <source><italic>e‐Government Metadata Standard Version 3.0</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents/eGovMetadataStandard%2020040429.pdf">www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents/eGovMetadataStandard%2020040429.pdf</ext-link> (accessed 15 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b11"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>CCSDS</string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS)</italic></source>, available at<italic>:</italic> <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ccsds.org/documents/pdf/CCSDS-650.0-R-2.pdf">www.ccsds.org/documents/pdf/CCSDS‐650.0‐R‐2.pdf</ext-link> (accessed 24 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b12"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chandler</surname>, <given-names>R.L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>Museums in the online archive of California (MOAC): building digital collections across libraries and museums</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>First Monday</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>7</volume> No. <issue>5</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_5/chandler/index.html">www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_5/chandler/index.html</ext-link> (accessed 17 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b14"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chen</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>The design of metadata for the Digital Museum Initiative in Taiwan</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Online Information Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>26</volume> No. <issue>5</issue>, pp. <fpage>295</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>306</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b13"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chen</surname>, <given-names>Y.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>A case study in designing Chinese metadata</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Online Information Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>24</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>229</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>34</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b15"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Coalition for Networked Information</string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), <source><italic>Current Practices in Digital Asset Management. Version 0.9</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.internet2.edu/pubs/200310-BP-DAM.pdf">www.internet2.edu/pubs/200310‐BP‐DAM.pdf</ext-link> (accessed 20 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b16"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cundiff</surname>, <given-names>M.V.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>An introduction to the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS)</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>52</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>64</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b17"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>DIDET Project</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), <source><italic>DIDET Project</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://dmem1.ds.strath.ac.uk/didet/">http://dmem1.ds.strath.ac.uk/didet/</ext-link> (accessed 13 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b18"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Digital Library Federation</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), <source><italic>About the DLF</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.diglib.org/about.htm">www.diglib.org/about.htm</ext-link> (accessed 17 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b19"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dunsire</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Macgregor</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Clumps and collection description in the information environment in the UK, with particular reference to Scotland</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Program</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>13</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b20"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>ERPANET</string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), <source><italic>Metadata in Digital Preservation ERPANET Training Seminar, Marburg September 3‐5, 2003</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.erpanet.org/www/products/marburg/documents/erpaTraining-Marburg_BriefingPaper.pdf">www.erpanet.org/www/products/marburg/documents/erpaTraining‐Marburg_BriefingPaper.pdf</ext-link> (accessed 20 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b21"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Farb</surname>, <given-names>S.E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Riggio</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Medium or message? A new look at standards, structures, and schemata for managing electronic resources</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>144</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>52</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b22"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gartner</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), <source><italic>METS: Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard, JISC Techwatch report, TSW 02‐05</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=techwatch_report_0205">www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=techwatch_report_0205</ext-link> (accessed 15 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b23"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gartner</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), <source><italic>MODS: Metadata Object Description Schema, JISC Techwatch Report, TSW 03‐06, 2003</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=techwatch_report_0306">www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=techwatch_report_0306</ext-link> (accessed 20 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b25"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Guenther</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>McCallum</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>New metadata standards for digital resources: MODS and METS</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>29</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>12</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>15</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b24"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Guenther</surname>, <given-names>R.S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Using the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) for resource description: guidelines and applications</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>89</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>98</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b26"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Haynes</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>The five purposes of metadata</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Update</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>3</volume> Nos <issue>7‐8</issue>, pp. <fpage>30</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>1</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b27"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>IMS Global Learning Consortium Inc.</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), <source><italic>IMS Global Learning Consortium Inc.</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.imsproject.org/content/packaging/">www.imsproject.org/content/packaging/</ext-link> (accessed 24 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b28"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Institute of Museum and Library Services</string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), <source><italic>A Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.imls.gov/pubs/forumframework.htm">www.imls.gov/pubs/forumframework.htm</ext-link> (accessed 15 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b29"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>International Organisation for Standardisation</string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), <source><italic>MPEG‐21 Overview V.5</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/standards/mpeg-21/mpeg-21.htm">www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/standards/mpeg‐21/mpeg‐21.htm</ext-link> (accessed 24 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b30"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Joint Information Systems Committee</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), <source><italic>Joint Information Systems Committee</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.jisc.ac.uk/">www.jisc.ac.uk/</ext-link> (accessed 13 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b31"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Law</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nicholson</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dunsire</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>Whole environment research on distributed and collaborative digital and non‐digital networked libraries in Scotland</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Bibliothek. Forschung und Praxis</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>26</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>113</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>23</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b32"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Library of Congress</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004a</year>), <source><italic>METS Official Web site</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/">www.loc.gov/standards/mets/</ext-link> (accessed 15 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b33"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Library of Congress</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004b</year>), <source><italic>AV Prototype Project Working Documents: Extension Schemas for the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/mopic/avprot/metsmenu2.html">http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/mopic/avprot/metsmenu2.html</ext-link> (accessed 13 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b34"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Library of Congress</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004c</year>), <source><italic>Audio‐Visual Prototyping Project: VideoMD Data Dictionary</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.loc.gov/rr/mopic/avprot/DD_VMD.html">www.loc.gov/rr/mopic/avprot/DD_VMD.html</ext-link> (accessed 16 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b35"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Library of Congress Help Desk</string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), <source><italic>METS: An Overview and Tutorial</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/METSOverview.html">www.loc.gov/standards/mets/METSOverview.html</ext-link> (accessed 17 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b36"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lubas</surname>, <given-names>R.L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Creating metadata practices for MIT's OpenCourseWare project</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>138</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>43</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b37"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>McCallum</surname>, <given-names>S.H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>An introduction to the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS)</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>82</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>8</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b38"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>MetaMap</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), <source><italic>MetaMap</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://mapageweb.umontreal.ca/turner/meta/english/index.html">http://mapageweb.umontreal.ca/turner/meta/english/index.html</ext-link> (accessed 13 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b39"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>MoPark Project</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), <source><italic>MoPark Project</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.mopark.net/">www.mopark.net/</ext-link> (accessed 13 September).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b40"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>National Digital Forum</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), <source><italic>Register of Digital Initiatives</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://ndf.natlib.govt.nz/index.htm">http://ndf.natlib.govt.nz/index.htm</ext-link> (accessed 12 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b41"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>National Information Standards Organization</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), <source><italic>Understanding Metadata</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.niso.org/standards/resources/UnderstandingMetadata.pdf">www.niso.org/standards/resources/UnderstandingMetadata.pdf</ext-link> (accessed 15 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b42"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>New Opportunities Fund</string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), <source><italic>EnrichUK</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.nof-digitise.org/">www.nof‐digitise.org/</ext-link> (accessed 15 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b43"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>New York University Libraries</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), <source><italic>CNI Structured Content Workshop</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://library.nyu.edu/diglib/StructuredContent/">http://library.nyu.edu/diglib/StructuredContent/</ext-link> (accessed 10 June 2005).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b44"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nicholson</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Subject‐based interoperability: issues from the High Level Thesaurus (HILT) Project</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>International Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>32</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b100"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nicholson</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Macgregor</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Devloping the Scottish cooperative infrastructure: the what, who, where, when and why of SPIER</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>WIDWISAWN</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>2</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://widwisawn.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/Issues/issue2.html">http://widwisawn.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/Issues/issue2.html</ext-link> (accessed 24 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b46"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Niu</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>A metadata framework developed at the Tsinghua University Library to aid in the preservation of digital resources,</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>D‐Lib Magazine</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>8</volume> No. <issue>11</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november02/niu/11niu.html">www.dlib.org/dlib/november02/niu/11niu.html</ext-link> (accessed 13 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b48"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ockerbloom</surname>, <given-names>J.M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <italic>et al.</italic> (<year>2004</year>), <source><italic>Digital Library Content and Course Management Systems: Issues of Interoperation July, 2004 Appendix 2: Supporting the Use of Digital Content in Electronic Learning Applications. A Checklist of Digital Repository Service Requirements, With Recommended Best Practices</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.diglib.org/pubs/cmsdl0407/cmsdl0407app2.pdf">www.diglib.org/pubs/cmsdl0407/cmsdl0407app2.pdf</ext-link> (accessed 17 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b47"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>OCLC/RLG Working Group on Preservation Metadata</string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), <source><italic>Preservation Metadata and the OAIS Information Model: A Metadata Framework to Support the Preservation of Digital Objects</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/pmwg/pm_framework.pdf">www.oclc.org/research/projects/pmwg/pm_framework.pdf</ext-link> (accessed 24 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b49"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Proffitt</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Pulling it all together: use of METS in RLG cultural materials service</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>65</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>8</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b51"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Semple</surname>, <given-names>N.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Developing a digital preservation strategy at Edinburgh University Library</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>VINE</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>34</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>33</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>7</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b52"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Shiri</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nicholson</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>McCulloch</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>User evaluation of a pilot terminologies server for a distributed multi‐scheme environment</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Online Information Review</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>28</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, pp. <fpage>273</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>83</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b53"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Smith</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <italic>et al.</italic>, (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>DSpace: an open source dynamic digital repository</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>D‐Lib Magazine</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>9</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january03/smith/01smith.html">www.dlib.org/dlib/january03/smith/01smith.html</ext-link> (accessed 20 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b54"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Staples</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <italic>et al.</italic>, (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>The Fedora Project: An open‐source digital object repository management system</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>D‐Lib Magazine</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>9</volume> No. <issue>4</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april03/staples/04staples.html">www.dlib.org/dlib/april03/staples/04staples.html</ext-link> (accessed 20 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b55"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Stehno</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>METAe‐Automated Encoding of Digitised Texts</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Literary and Linguistic Computing</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>18</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>77</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>88</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b59"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tennant</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>Metadata as if libraries depended on it</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>127</volume> No. <issue>7</issue>, pp. <fpage>32</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>4</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b57"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tennant</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003a</year>), “<article-title><italic>A bibliographic metadata infrastructure for the twenty‐first century</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>175</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>81</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b58"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tennant</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003b</year>), “<article-title><italic>The engine of interoperability</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>128</volume> No. <issue>20</issue>, p. <fpage>33</fpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b56"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tennant</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>It's opening day for METS</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Journal</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>129</volume> No. <issue>9</issue>, p. <fpage>28</fpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b60"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>W3C</string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), <source><italic>Extensible Markup Language (XML)</italic></source>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/XML/">www.w3.org/XML/</ext-link> (accessed 24 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b101"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Winch</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Scotland's portal</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information Scotland</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>1</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.slainte.org.uk/publications/serials/infoscot/voll">www.slainte.org.uk/publications/serials/infoscot/voll</ext-link>(6)/make.html (accessed 24 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b62"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Yee</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>A preliminary crosswalk from METS to IMS content packaging</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>22</volume> No. <issue>1</issue>, pp. <fpage>69</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>81</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list><ref-list><title>Further Reading</title><ref id="frg1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Seadle</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), “<article-title><italic>METS and the metadata marketplace</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Library Hi Tech</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>20</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>255</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>7</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="frg2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Winch</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Scotland's portal</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information Scotland</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>1</volume> No. <issue>6</issue>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.slainte.org.uk/publications/serials/infoscot/vol1">www.slainte.org.uk/publications/serials/infoscot/vol1</ext-link>(6)/make.html (accessed 24 September 2004).</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list><app-group><app id="APP1"><title>Appendix. Glossary/abbreviations</title><p>DAMS Digital Asset Management System (proprietary software used in the MoPark project) DC Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://dublincore.org/documents/dces">http://dublincore.org/documents/dces</ext-link><italic>/</italic>) DDC Dewey Decimal Classification (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.oclc.org/dewey/">www.oclc.org/dewey/</ext-link>) DIDET Digital Libraries for Global Distributed Innovative Design, Education and Teamwork Project (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://dmem1.ds.strath.ac.uk/didet/">http://dmem1.ds.strath.ac.uk/didet/</ext-link>) EAD Encoded Archival Description (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.loc.gov/ead/">www.loc.gov/ead/</ext-link>) e‐GIF UK e‐Government Interoperability Framework (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/schemasstandards/egif.asp">www.govtalk.gov.uk/schemasstandards/egif.asp</ext-link>) e‐GMS UK e‐Government Metadata Standard (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/schemasstandards/metadata.asp">www.govtalk.gov.uk/schemasstandards/metadata.asp</ext-link>) GIS Geographic Information System (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.gis.com/whatisgis/overview.html">www.gis.com/whatisgis/overview.html</ext-link>) GPS Global Positioning System HILT High‐Level Thesaurus Project (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://hilt.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/">http://hilt.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/</ext-link>) IMS Instructional Management Systems IMS‐CP IMS Global Learning Consortium – Content Packaging Information Model (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.imsglobal.org/content/packaging/cpv1p1p2/imscp_infov1p1p2.html">www.imsglobal.org/content/packaging/cpv1p1p2/imscp_infov1p1p2.html</ext-link>) ISO International Standards Organization (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.iso.org/">www.iso.org/</ext-link>) LCSH Library of Congress Subject Headings (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://authorities.loc.gov/">http://authorities.loc.gov/</ext-link>) MARC Machine Readable Cataloging (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.loc.gov/marc/">www.loc.gov/marc/</ext-link>) MARCXML XML framework for MARC (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/">www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/</ext-link>) METS Metadata Encoding Transmission Standard (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/">www.loc.gov/standards/mets/</ext-link>) MIX Metadata for Images in XML Standard (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.loc.gov/standards/mix/">www.loc.gov/standards/mix/</ext-link>) MODS Metadata Object Description Schema (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/">www.loc.gov/standards/mods/</ext-link>) MPEG‐7 Moving Picture Expert Group 7 – Multimedia Content Description Interface (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/standards/mpeg-7/mpeg-7.htm">www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/standards/mpeg‐7/mpeg‐7.htm</ext-link>) MPEG‐21 Moving Pictures Expert Group 21 – Multimedia Framework initiative (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/standards/mpeg-21/mpeg-21.htm">www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/standards/mpeg‐21/mpeg‐21.htm</ext-link>) NISO National Information Standards Organization (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.niso.org/">www.niso.org/</ext-link>) OCLC Online Computer Library Center (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.oclc.org">www.oclc.org</ext-link>) OAIS Open Archival Information System (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ccsds.org/RP9905/">www.ccsds.org/RP9905/</ext-link>) PDA Personal Digital Assistant RLG The Research Libraries Group (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.rlg.org">www.rlg.org</ext-link>) TEI Text Encoding Initiative (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.tei-c.org/">www.tei‐c.org/</ext-link>) TextMD Schema for Technical Metadata for Text (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://dlib.nyu.edu/METS/textmd.xsd">http://dlib.nyu.edu/METS/textmd.xsd</ext-link>) SCORM Sharable Courseware Object Reference Model (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.adlnet.org/scorm/index.cfm">www.adlnet.org/scorm/index.cfm</ext-link>) XML Extensible Markup Language (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/XML/">www.w3.org/XML/</ext-link>)</p></app><app id="APP2"><title>Corresponding author</title><p>Dennis Nicholson can be contacted at: d.m.nicholson@strath.ac.uk</p></app></app-group></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Interpretive journeys and METS</title><subTitle>Determining requirements for the effective management of complex digital objects in a National Park</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Interpretive journeys and METS</title><subTitle>Determining requirements for the effective management of complex digital objects in a National Park</subTitle></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Dennis</namePart><namePart type="family">Nicholson</namePart><affiliation>Centre for Digital Library Research, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, UK</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2006-03-01</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2006</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract>Purpose To report on initial work carried out on a Metadata Options Appraisal undertaken for the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park in the context of plans to create and manage complex digital objects called Interpretive Journeys, PDAbased multimedia guides to Park tours. Designmethodologyapproach After some initial work, a phased approach was adopted. In Phase I reported here, metadata schema for managing structurally complex digital objects were researched to provide a range of appropriate options. Their characteristics were then matched against the Park's general requirements as determined through discussions with staff and an examination of relevant documentation. Findings It was determined that the METS metadata schema met Park requirements for managing Interpretive Journeys at a general level and could be used both, to inform the development of the planned Digital Asset Management System an early priority, and to act as the main basis of a framework for determining a detailed metadata solution for the Park. Research limitationsimplications Further work is required in Phase II to determine the detailed metadata requirement for the Park. Practical implications A useful guide to dealing with a range of management and metadata issues associated with managing complex digital objects, and to managing projects where guidance on metadata requirements is needed before the objects to be described are available. Originalityvalue This paper offers an introduction to the management and metadata issues raised by Interpretive Journeys and digital composites of similar complexity, and an indication of how METS addresses these at a general level.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>Portable digital assistants</topic><topic>Tourism</topic><topic>Data handling</topic><topic>Scotland</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Documentation</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>Emerald Subject Group</genre><topic authority="SubjectCodesPrimary" authorityURI="cat-IKM">Information & knowledge management</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-ICT">Information & communications technology</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-IMG">Information management & governance</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-INT">Internet</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-IMAN">Information management</topic></subject><subject><genre>Emerald Subject Group</genre><topic authority="SubjectCodesPrimary" authorityURI="cat-LISC">Library & information science</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-CCAT">Classification & cataloguing</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-CBM">Collection building & management</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-IBRT">Information behaviour & retrieval</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-RMP">Records management & preservation</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-SCPG">Scholarly communications/publishing</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-DOCM">Document management</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0022-0418</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">jd</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/jd</identifier><part><date>2006</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>62</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>271</start><end>290</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">9B7FBBFEB19D74544A37214F0F6CCF12CAD60769</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/00220410610653334</identifier><identifier type="filenameID">2780620206</identifier><identifier type="original-pdf">2780620206.pdf</identifier><identifier type="href">00220410610653334.pdf</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>EMERALD</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Ticri/explor/TeiVM2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000496 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000496 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Ticri
|area= TeiVM2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:9B7FBBFEB19D74544A37214F0F6CCF12CAD60769
|texte= Interpretive journeys and METS
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |