Difference between revisions of "Feb. 10, 2006"

From Metadata-Registry
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Agenda ==
 
== Agenda ==
(1) Discuss current state of GEM metadata feeds
+
1. Discuss current state of GEM metadata feeds (see below)
 +
2. Discuss MMS integration
  
 
== GEM Metadata Management Needs ==
 
== GEM Metadata Management Needs ==

Revision as of 09:23, 9 February 2006

Agenda

1. Discuss current state of GEM metadata feeds (see below) 2. Discuss MMS integration

GEM Metadata Management Needs

  • GEM as hybrid (fairly tight federation of data providers (current consortium) and select open harvest (new)
  • Current feed integration underway of major federation collections using GEM XML schema (alternative collection holder or GEMCat4 RDF/XML)
    • Federated data--minimal quality control and minimal initial augmentation
    • Harvested data--potentially high quality issues and initial augmentation
  • Current state of collection
    • Approximately 45,000 consortium member conformant GEM records
    • Approximately 5,000 non-consortium member OAI-harvested records
    • Two GEM schema versions--GEM 1.0 and GEM 2.0
    • Variety of source encodings (OAI (minimal), GEM Syntax 0, GEM DB-XML, GEM XML 2.0, RDF/XML (2.0))
      • Current integration underway (GEM XML 2.0 Schema)
    • Largest proportion (over 50%) of records in top 10 collections--attack first
    • Largest percentage of records (26,000) coming through GEM harvest of separate (non embedded) metadata records
      • While I am not yet certain of this fact, I think GEM actually controls the vast majority of these records (i.e., we harvest from ourself :-))
    • Only about 3,500 records harvested from resource-embedded metadata (HTML header)
    • Approximately