The powerpoint of my presentation

1. Recommendations for Geospatial
Metadata Standards for Digital
Collections

2. Introduction
• Hello, I’m Dorotea Szkolar!
– M.L.I.S. Candidate at Syracuse University.
– Specializing in Digital Libraries.
– Professional background in museums and
research.
– Internship focus on geo-spatial metadata
interoperability.

3. Purpose
• Introduce Geospatial Metadata
– Importance/GIS Technology/ Map Interfaces
– Benefit to MWDL and Its Partners
• Overview Analysis
– Highlight Specific Interoperability Issues
• Overview Recommendations
– Short Term
– Long Term

4. So What?
• So What? Who Cares
About Geospatial
Metadata!?
– Maps are lame and old
news!
– What does it matter
having standards for
spatial metadata?
– Why make it the focus
of my internship?

5. Geospatial Revolution
• Geospatial Information and Map
Interfaces are the next big things!
– Geospatial Revolution.
– Maps visualize information and
patterns in ways text cannot
achieve.
– Several Digital Libraries
achieving exciting results on
this forefront.
– Great opportunities for
collaboration and
advancement.

6. Example
• The World Digital Library
– Sleek Map Interface to Showcase Digital
Collections of Partners From Around the World
– http://www.wdl.org/en/
• Map of State of the Internet
– http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/
• Tweets of the words “beer” and “church” by
U.S. county
– http://io9.com/5923723/tweets-of-the-words-beer-
and-church-by-us-county

7. Other Examples
• MWDL could visualize
partners collections and
information in new
exciting ways.
• But in order to achieve
that, need to resolve
geo-spatial metadata
interoperability issues!

8. Table 1
Coll. Digital Collection Partner No. of CONTENTdm No. of
No. Records in Geospatial Field(s) -- Distinct
Collection Label(s) Values for
Spatial
Field • Collections which map
to the spatial
1 American University of Utah - J. 62 Latitude; Place Names 37
Westward Willard Marriott refinement of
Migration Library coverage: 50
2 Barry Maxfield Utah Valley 252 Coverage-Spatial 64
• Total Collection
Railroad University Library Records: 103,971
Photographs
• Avg. No. of Distinct
3 Bear River Utah State University 772 Location; Geographic data 85 Values for Spatial Field:
Watershed - Merrill-Cazier 52.6
Historical Library
Collection • Almost all the
collections contained
4 Civilian
Conservation
Utah State Historical
Society
1455 Geopolitical place 92
spatial terms involving
Corps in Utah state, county,
Geographic Location
populated place and
5 Design Workshop Utah State University 303 4
Landscape - Merrill-Cazier feature
Architecture Library
Archive

9. Table 2
Collection Partner Subject Coverage Spatial
Coverage
Adams, R. Southern Yes No No
D. Utah
University
- Sherratt • 50 out of 297 collections
Albert
Library
University No No No
map to the spatial
Tissandier of Utah - refinement of coverage.
Collection Utah
Museum • 170 out of the 297 (not
of Fine
Arts
including collections
Alta (UT) University No Yes Yes mapping to coverage spatial
refinement), contain spatial
Avalanche of Utah -
Study J. Willard
Center Marriott term or reference in the
Library
subject or coverage field.
American Brigham Yes No No
Travelers in Young
Italy University
- Harold
B. Lee
Library

10. Analysis Highlights
• Total of 50 collections use spatial
refinement of Dublin core
(dcterms:spatial).
• On average 53 distinct values or terms
utilized in each collection = wide variation.
• 2/3 of collections contain spatial
information somewhere in metadata =
starting point to improve.

11. Map Interface
Examples and Issues
• Inconsistent formatting and
vocabularies resulted in:
– Semantic based errors
– Interoperability issues
– Display difficulties in map
initiatives.
– Skewed map density or
items not properly
displaying on the map.
• Country: Britain Vs. England
Vs. United Kingdom
• State: Utah County Vs. Utah
State
• City: Salt Lake City Vs. Salt
Lake County

12. Summary of Issues and
Missed Opportunities
• Reduced success of search.
• Interoperability issues worsen as
additional geographic regions are
incorporated.
• Map initiative display difficulties.
• Collaboration difficulties- DPLA
• Historic Names vs. Current Political Name

13. Recommendations-
Short Tern
• Mandate partners utilize spatial coverage
refinement in future collections harvested by
MWDL.
• Complete global search and replace of simple
geospatial metadata with properly formatted
spatial metadata in current collections.
• Hire a programmer to write scripts to
automatically make assumptions when
harvesting metadata.

14. Recommendations-
Long Term
• Select and enforce one standard for
formatting and select controlled
vocabularies (see report for candidates).
• Ensure standards adopted are compliant
ISO 19115.
• Collaborate and experiment with
interactive map interfaces and geospatial
technologies.

15. Recommendations-
Long Tern
• Require partners to set timeline and make
reformatting of spatial metadata part of long
term institutional plan.
• Fundraise and establish funds for support.
– Allow partners to hire someone to reformat
metadata in a timely manner.
– Hiring additional staff for MWDL to assist with map
interfaces and spatial based initiatives.
– Build proper metadata infrastructure.

16. Questions welcome!
• Sandra McIntyre
Program Director
Mountain West Digital Library
sandra.mcintyre@utah.edu
• Dorotea Szkolar
2012 Mountain West Digital Library Intern
Email: doroteaszkolar@gmail.com
Twitter: @doroteaszkolar
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/doroteaszkolar