Investigating the Roles and Requirements, Manifestations and Management of Metadata in the Creation of Reliable and Preservation of Authentic Electronic Entities Created by Dynamic, Interactive and Experiential Systems: Report on the Work and Findings of the Interpares 2 Description Cross Domain Group

Metadata that is associated with either an information system or an information object for purposes of description, administration, legal requirements, technical functionality, use and usage, and preservation, plays a critical role in ensuring the creation, management, preservation and use and re-use of trustworthymaterials, including records. Recordkeeping1 metadata, of which one key type is archival description, plays a particularly important role in documenting the reliability and authenticity of records and recordkeeping systemsas well as the various contexts (legal-administrative, provenancial, procedural, documentary, and technical) within which records are created and kept as they move across space and time. In the digital environment, metadata is also the means by which it is possible to identify how record components – those constituent aspects of a digital record that may be managed, stored and used separately by the creator or the preserver – can be reassembled to generate an authentic copy of a record or reformulated per a user’s request as a customized output package.Issues relating to the creation, capture, management and preservation of adequate metadata are, therefore, integral to any research study addressing the reliability and authenticity of digital entities, regardless of the community, sector or institution within which they are being created. The InterPARES 2 Description Cross-Domain Group (DCD) examined the conceptualization, definitions, roles, and current functionality of metadata and archival description in terms of requirements generated by InterPARES 12. Because of the needs to communicate the work of InterPARES in a meaningful way across not only other disciplines, but also different archival traditions; to interface with, evaluate and inform existing standards, practices and other research projects; and to ensure interoperability across the three focus areas of InterPARES2, the Description Cross-Domain also addressed its research goals with reference to wider thinking about and developments in recordkeeping and metadata. InterPARES2 addressed not only records, however, but a range of digital information objects (referred to as “entities” by InterPARES 2, but not to be confused with the term “entities” as used in metadata and database applications) that are the products and by-products of government, scientific and artistic activities that are carried out using dynamic, interactive or experiential digital systems. The nature of these entities was determined through a diplomatic analysis undertaken as part of extensive case studies of digital systems that were conducted by the InterPARES 2 Focus Groups. This diplomatic analysis established whether the entities identified during the case studies were records, non-records that nevertheless raised important concerns relating to reliability and authenticity, or “potential records.” To be determined to be records, the entities had to meet the criteria outlined by archival theory – they had to have a fixed documentary format and stable content. It was not sufficient that they be considered to be or treated as records by the creator. “Potential records” is a new construct that indicates that a digital system has the potential to create records upon demand, but does not actually fix and set aside records in the normal course of business. The work of the Description Cross-Domain Group, therefore, addresses the metadata needs for all three categories of entities.Finally, since “metadata” as a term is used today so ubiquitously and in so many different ways by different communities, that it is in peril of losing any specificity, part of the work of the DCD sought to name and type categories of metadata. It also addressed incentives for creators to generate appropriate metadata, as well as issues associated with the retention, maintenance and eventual disposition of the metadata that aggregates around digital entities over time.

Layered Information Modeling and a Knowledge Organization Paradigm: Inherent Classification and the Design of Interoperable Systems

In knowledge technology work, as expressed by the scope of this conference, there are a number of communities, each uncovering new methods, theories, and practices. The Library and Information Science (LIS) community is one such community. This community, through tradition and innovation, theories and practice, organizes knowledge and develops knowledge technologies formed by iterative research hewn to the values of equal access and discovery for all. The Information Modeling community is another contributor to knowledge technologies. It concerns itself with the construction of symbolic models that capture the meaning of information and organize it in ways that are computer-based, but human understandable. A recent paper that examines certain assumptions in information modeling builds a bridge between these two communities, offering a forum for a discussion on common aims from a common perspective. In a June 2000 article, Parsons and Wand separate classes from instances in information modeling in order to free instances from what they call the “tyranny” of classes. They attribute a number of problems in information modeling to inherent classification – or the disregard for the fact that instances can be conceptualized independent of any class assignment. By faceting instances from classes, Parsons and Wand strike a sonorous chord with classification theory as understood in LIS. In the practice community and in the publications of LIS, faceted classification has shifted the paradigm of knowledge organization theory in the twentieth century. Here, with the proposal of inherent classification and the resulting layered information modeling, a clear line joins both the LIS classification theory community and the information modeling community. Both communities have their eyes turned toward networked resource discovery, and with this conceptual conjunction a new paradigmatic conversation can take place. Parsons and Wand propose that the layered information model can facilitate schema integration, schema evolution, and interoperability. These three spheres in information modeling have their own connotation, but are not distant from the aims of classification research in LIS. In this new conceptual conjunction, established by Parsons and Ward, information modeling through the layered information model, can expand the horizons of classification theory beyond LIS, promoting a cross-fertilization of ideas on the interoperability of subject access tools like classification schemes, thesauri, taxonomies, and ontologies. This paper examines the common ground between the layered information model and faceted classification, establishing a vocabulary and outlining some common principles. It then turns to the issue of schema and the horizons of conventional classification and the differences between Information Modeling and Library and Information Science. Finally, a framework is proposed that deploys an interpretation of the layered information modeling approach in a knowledge technologies context. In order to design subject access systems that will integrate, evolve and interoperate in a networked environment, knowledge organization specialists must consider a semantic class independence like Parsons and Wand propose for information modeling.

Constructs in Knowledge Organization Systems: Rhythm in Time, Intention, and Form

In the context of the International Society for Knowledge Organization, we often consider knowledge organization systems to comprise catalogues, thesauri, and bibliothecal classification schemes – schemes for library arrangement. In recent years we have added ontologies and folksonomies to our sphere of study. In all of these cases it seems we are concerned with improving access to information. We want a good system.And much of the literature from the late 19th into the late 20th century took that as their goal – to analyze the world of knowledge and the structures of representing it as its objects of study; again, with the ethos for creating a good system. In most cases this meant we had to be correct in our assertions about the universe of knowledge and the relationships that obtain between its constituent parts. As a result much of the literature of knowledge organization is prescriptive – instructing designers and professionals how to build or use the schemes correctly – that is to maximize redundant success in accessing information.In 2005, there was a turn in some of the knowledge organization literature. It has been called the descriptive turn. This is in relation to the otherwise prescriptive efforts of researchers in KO. And it is the descriptive turn that makes me think of context, languages, and cultures in knowledge organization–the theme of this year’s conference.Work in the descriptive turn questions the basic assumptions about what we want to do when we create, implement, maintain, and evaluate knowledge organization systems. Following on these assumptions researchers have examined a wider range of systems and question the motivations behind system design. Online websites that allow users to curate their own collections are one such addition, for example Pinterest (cf., Feinberg, 2011). However, researchers have also looked back at other lineages of organizing to compare forms and functions. For example, encyclopedias, catalogues raisonnés, archival description, and winter counts designed and used by Native Americans.In this case of online curated collections, Melanie Feinberg has started to examine the craft of curation, as she calls it. In this line of research purpose, voice, and rhetorical stance surface as design considerations. For example, in the case of the Pinterest, users are able and encouraged to create boards. The process of putting together these boards is an act of curation in contemporary terminology. It is describing this craft that comes from the descriptive turn in KO.In the second case, when researchers in the descriptive turn look back at older and varied examples of knowledge organization systems, we are looking for a full inventory of intent and inspiration for future design. Encyclopedias, catalogues raisonnés, archival description, and works of knowledge organization in other cultures provide a rich world for the descriptive turn. And researchers have availed themselves of this.