If you want to add Dublin Core to a website (using HTML), the DCMI folks have provided the following guide for doing so. Insert a pdf into a word document convert pdf to images method 1 of 2 this method involves converting the pdf into one or more images. Dcmi no no yes yes rng. Expressing qualified dublin core in htmlxhtml meta and. Add metadata to pdf library sdk class wpf azure ajax. The dcmi description set model and the dcmi.

Author: Kagal Zololar
Country: Tanzania
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Business
Published (Last): 4 March 2008
Pages: 323
PDF File Size: 4.1 Mb
ePub File Size: 7.44 Mb
ISBN: 473-1-34241-769-6
Downloads: 63171
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Voodoogrel

It also seeks to comply with the proposal to Standardize the Default Namespace. In addition to the child page of mappings linked below, see the grandchild pages, “Samples and decision points for mappings.

For proposed phased schema changes see: Add schema “dcterms” to the DSpace 4.

Updating the Qualified Dublin Core registry in DSpace – DCAT Discussion Forum – DuraSpace Wiki

Change default schema from “dc” to “dcterms”. The “dc” schema is updated.

DS – Getting issue details What areas and processes will be affected by these shifts? Is there any documentation of what features in DSpace are making use of certain fields? Where will the code be affected? Where are metadata elements hardcoded? Proposal For Metadata Enhancement has been updated yesterday. We needed to provide a solution for a complex project that involved melding the existing repository content which contains mainly theses content to becoming the institutional collection for research outputs.

We implemented a metadata crosswork ho our dspace repository and the research outputs management system to transfer data from one system to another. I agree with Yanan. DSpace as it is does not support granular metadata. At the same time, the simple structure of element, qualifier and authority makes it easy to extend the metadata set and adapt it to our own needs. The customization of the metadata format has been done by the community in different ways, in most of the cases looking for the same goal: This extension is necessary for defining granular information, like insedt name, location, start and end page, etc This granularity can then be easily used for exporting using other formats like MODS and MARC, while it is also available for import from existing databases or through reference managers.

The actual metadata formatting is simple and flexible. However, it is based on old DC definitions which does not work for harvestable standards beyond DC. Internally the simplicity should be preserved, but still there is a need of applying richer metadata standards. All the extra elements see examples abovewhich now have been defined in many ways, should be standardized. Tools to rework the granular elements should be inserr to create different metadata formats in the first place for harvestingnot only as a translation of DC qualified as it is now.

All the existing values should be available for harvesting. The main functionalities of a repository should jnsert the use of a submission module to collect content and the delivery of quality metadata useful for being completely harvested with all the meaningful values.

In Type is an important structuring element for metadata, which should be better supported in the submission interface. There is generic metadata, but besides that different types book, book section, journal contribution, interview, … have inssert elements. That should help to define the necessary granularity. There is also metadata available from databases in different formats e.

They are more granular than the DC qualified used in DSpace. This should be resolved too. Gradually, we became convinced that we needed a better handling of metadata than a basic DSpace can offer. We worked therefore on three levels:. For me, it proves that for internal use a simple model can work.


Expressing Dublin Core metadata using HTML/XHTML meta and link elements

I agree that updating is necessary. This update should foresee granular approach more standardized, where adaptation and extension should still be possible. DSpace can only provide good quality metadata by using a good submission module. Finally, crosswalk tools are needed to translate internal metadata to rich standard formats in the first place for OAI harvesting — and, as second stage, for exposing Linked Open Data.

Not sure why an intermediate step for DC qualified is needed, seems inserr a retro move. During the discussion of this agenda at OR at the DSpace ‘committers’ meeting on Monday, I volunteered to provide some tool assistance to facilitate the program.

I have completed a draft of the first tool, but before I offer it as a patch to the codebase, I wanted to make sure it addressed the basic needs mostly phase 1 stuff, but could be generally useful.

Please let me know if there is functionality not described here that would be valuable. Here’s a description of the ‘MetadataMapper’ tool:. It might dc,i sense to bundle it with 4. This map is placed in a config file read by the curation task, which will then take all the metadata values found if any in the left side and move them to the right side.

As with all curation tasks, these move operations can be done to a single. Item or Items one by oneto all Items in a collection, to all items in a community, or to the whole repository. You can run the task as many times as you dxmi, either in the Admin UI Manakin only or from a command line. The tool can add some special handling to these ijsert depending on how the metadata has been set up.

There are 3 cases: As with any task, you can if run from the command-line capture all the specific changes to a file for later reference. The info provided looks like this one line for each item: This means the tool copied 3 values from contributor. Let me know if this sounds like it will cover what we need as far as Item metadata I realize there are a lot of other issues, like input-forms, crosswalks, etc.

This sounds really well thought out to me, between the levels at which the curation task might be applied, the option of previewing, and the capture of changes. Another reason one might want to log the values is if they are changed in any way.

An example would be:. In this case, one might want to record the pre-transformation value, I suppose. Curious what the use case might be for assignment, where left-hand data is discarded is the right-hand is occupied?

Are you thinking of this as a way to run a check to ensure that the data has transferred? I agree with your setup wherein the registry fields are already defined rather than somehow established or created within the migration tool.

In addition to a transformation capability, there are use cases around a validation capability for the tool– one that will alert users if they are transferring non-compliant data into a field.

You might consider the alternative of having a separate validation task, since you might want to run that by itself in other cases. If you happen to be mapping, you could separately validate the old MD beforehand, the new MD afterward, or both. This seems to me like a case in which two simple tools beat one more complex tool. Assignment is meant to be a sort of ‘safe replace’ or ‘choose best value’ operation. If the right-hand field has been newly created, then merge and replace do the same thing – just copy values into it.


This will be the overwhelmingly most common case. If there are values present however, one has to decide what the relationship of them are to the left-hand values: This may make sense sometimes, but typically only if the field is multivalued.

Should we discard the right-hand side? If so, use replace. Suppose though, we have begun cataloging into the right side field, but not bothered to remove any superseded values in the left-side not cleaned up past practice In this case, neither merge nor replace seem right – thus assignment. It essentially means “if there is a value there, it’s the one I want to keep”.

BTW – I concur with Mark Wood on validation as an independent concern, thus meriting a different tool. The need for additional metadata suited to specific uses of DSpace seems to me to be precisely the reason that DSpace was designed to support multiple namespaces. Sites which archive images of pottery will have different needs than sites which archive chemical research reports or musical performances.

I think that DSpace could and should ship with additional namespaces which could be loaded by sites that need them. It won’t ever have everything that everyone wants, because people are endlessly creative in identifying new wants. One thing that is asked for often is article-level metadata.

I can’t say whether it’s a good answer, but it’s an example showing that what you want might already have been standardized. Don’t work more than you have to! I feel that too much metadata customization for DSpace takes place in the dark dcmu than being discussed and shared. One of the things I hope for insdrt this insedt renovation is that that will change. Oddly enough, DSpace arguably makes too entirely too easy to deal with some metadata issues by just tweaking the default namespace and moving on.

We haven’t done enough to encourage reliance on the community, not just of DSpace sites but the broader community of networked information resources. Richard, do you think the tool might be ready for 4. We’d be interested in looking at and testing the tool whenever the code is ready and giving feedback. It is already written as described, but I wanted to make sure it met the basic needs before committing to the codebase. As to testing, what environment do you have available?

If you have a 1. WIthout this, it’s hard to devise automation tools that work for isert numbers of sites. What does profile mean? You could ‘harvest’ these profiles from all participating sites, and combine the results kind of like OAI-PMH harvesting to get an aggregate picture of metadata usage.

What do you think? We had to customise our metadata i. As our repository grows bigger and bigger, it would be very useful to know which metadata fields have been used heavily and which ones have not been used, to understand implication of changes to crosswalk etc.