Metadata Standards: Artifact Types and User Scenarios
Our Interest Group's first spin-off Working Group will work to identify optimal metadata for researcher-created data in history and ethnography (recorded interviews, field notes, etc). One goal is to figure out how/if Dublin Core standards need to be updated to deal with linked data. Dublin Core will be hosting a Training the Trainers for Linked Data Workshop on Oct 11 in Austin, TX during their annual conference.
We are interested in the philosophy and practical possibilities of ARK.
Here, please list artifact-types and user scenarios. Please add your own user scenarios to those already attached to a particular artifact.
Fieldnotes may be handwritten (scanned) or in various electronic forms. Author identifers may not be explicit.
Often a set of written questions, that orient (usually qualitative) data collection and analysis. To date, researchers haven't gotten credit for producing analytic frameworks in themselves; further, some researchers guard these frameworks as private. Facilitating credit for thier production would be good and fair in itself (rewarding methodological innovation), and could encourage sharing even by people who are so inclined.
FOUND IMAGES (e.g. photos or drawing collected -- but not produced by the researchers)
PRODUCED IMAGES (e.g. photos taken by the researcher)
Includes legacy interviews -- collected in the past, likely on out-dated technology and without explicit permission to share publicly. A metadata field that allows a researcher to report the conditions of production and why s/he feel it appropriate to share.
Metadata needs to include media type.
PRINTED GRAY MATTER
Includes research proposals, research reports (for funding agencies, for example),
TRANSLATIONS (e.g. Farsi language policy documents translated into English)