Collaborative Creation of the
OER Metadata Rosetta Stone
November 10th, 2020
1:00pm EST
Camille Thomas, Florida State University
Heather White, Mt Hood Community College
Bill Jones, SUNY Geneseo
The Rosetta Stone, Pixabay
Why does OER need a Metadata Rosetta Stone?
“While there is ongoing improvement in some of the larger open educational resources (OER) search engines, librarians sending emails to listservs asking ‘anyone know of OER on this topic?’ and keeping old-fashioned reading lists of valuable OER are common occurrences.”
Metadata Silos = Discovery Silos = Missed OER
Made, AU, Noun Project
Why does OER need a Metadata Rosetta Stone? (cont.)
Gold Standard: Library Research
Federated Searching: a big step in the right direction
(data in/data out; no enhancement to improve OER discovery)
Next Step: Translate Metadata Languages
Untitled CC0, PxHere
OER Discovery Working Group
Iconaton, US, Noun Project
Initiative Background
Collaborative Process: In the beginning...
We began by developing a list of “Core Elements” based on the DPLA Application Profile, and then referenced additional schemas to add new elements
Our Group
Collaborative Process: Making Meaning
We created a simple table to define our elements and assigned members of the group to define each of the elements by borrowing a definition from existing schemas or creating their own
The goal was to make the definitions as meaningful as possible
These original table headings have changed in our current version
Collaborative Process: Developing Recommendations
Is the element Required? Recommended? Or Optional?
Required: �The element must be contained within the new metadata record.
Recommended: �The element must be supplied to the new metadata record when available from the original object. Some of these were elements that we wanted to be required, but thought would not necessarily always be available from the existing record. The new metadata record is still considered complete in absence of a recommended element.
Optional: �Recognized as useful, but the new metadata record is still considered complete in absence of an optional element.
Symbolon, IT, Noun Project
Collaborative Process: Mapping the Elements
Using MHCC’s OER MARC Template (CC-BY) as a foundation, we mapped the selected elements to their MARC values.
We also began by mapping to Dublin Core, and then created a blend of LRMI with Schema.org
Collaborative Process: Testing the Records
We tested sample OER to see how well we would be able to adapt the existing metadata for the item into to the OER Metadata Rosetta Stone schema. One of the test source records was containing a field for Audience, which was missing from our schema. This led to the addition of the field of Audience, defined by OpenAire:
Collaborative Process: Circular Conversations
The OER Metadata Rosetta Stone
Core elements:
The OER Metadata Rosetta Stone: Core Elements
Title�Author/Creator�Subject�Description�Language�Date�Material Type�Media Format�Rights Holder�License Description�License Title�License URL
Audience�Contributor�Editor�Table of Contents�File Type�File Size�Duration�Identifier�Peer Review�Education Level�Course Title�Course Identifier
Alternate Title�Edition Statement�Page Count�Publisher�Provider�Place�Provenance�Relationship�Is Ancillary�Has Ancillaries
Required
Recommended
Optional
Current Status & Next Steps
Untitled CC0, Pixnio
Thank you!
Collaborative Creation of the OER Metadata Rosetta Stone
Camille Thomas, Florida State University�Scholarly Communication Librarian�camille@sparcopen.org
Heather White, Mt Hood Community College�Library Technical Services & OER Coordinator�heather.white@mhcc.edu
Bill Jones, SUNY Geneseo�Digital Resources and Systems Librarian�jonesw@geneseo.edu