Difference between revisions of "Feb. 10, 2006"
From Metadata-Registry
m |
m |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
1. Discuss current state of GEM metadata feeds (see below) | 1. Discuss current state of GEM metadata feeds (see below) | ||
− | 2. Discuss MMS integration | + | 2. Discuss MMS integration (per Diane/Jon emails) |
== 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 (per Diane/Jon emails)
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