Output – MetaTools – Final Report – Summary

Output Name: Output – MetaTools – Final Report

Title: MetaTools – Final Report
Number of pages or page numbers:  98 pages

Date Released: 24 November 2008

URI for Output: http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/258/

Summary of contents:

Automatic metadata generation has sometimes been posited as a solution to the ‘metadata bottleneck’ that repositories and portals are facing as they struggle to provide resource discovery metadata for a rapidly growing number of new digital resources. Unfortunately there is no registry or trusted body of documentation that rates the quality of metadata generation tools or identifies the most effective tool(s) for any given task. The aim of the first stage of the project was to remedy this situation by developing a framework for evaluating tools used for the purpose of generating Dublin Core metadata. A range of intrinsic and extrinsic metrics (standard tests or measurements) that capture the attributes of good metadata from various perspectives were identified from the research literature and evaluated in a report. A test program was then implemented using metrics from the framework. It evaluated the quality of metadata generated from 1) Web pages (html) and 2) scholarly works (pdf) by four of the more widely-known metadata generation tools – Data Fountains, DC-dot, SamgI, and the Yahoo! Term Extractor. The intention was also to test PaperBase, a prototype for generating metadata for scholarly works, but its developers ultimately preferred to conduct tests in-house. Some interesting comparisons with their results were nonetheless possible and were included in the stage 2 report. It was found that the output from Data Fountains was generally superior to that of the other tools that the project tested. But the output from all of the tools was considered to be disappointing and markedly inferior to the quality of metadata that Tonkin and Muller report that PaperBase has extracted from scholarly works. Over all, the prospects for generating high-quality metadata for scholarly works appear to be brighter because of their more predictable layout. It is suggested JISC should particularly encourage research into auto-generation methods that exploit the structural and syntactic features of scholarly works in pdf format, as exemplified by PaperBase, and strongly consider funding the development of tools in this direction. In the third stage of the project SOAP and RESTful Web Service interfaces were developed for three metadata generation tools – Data Fountains, SamgI and Kea. This had a dual purpose. Firstly, the creation of an optimal metadata record usually requires the merging of output from several tools each of which, until now, had to be invoked separately because of the ad hoc nature of their interfaces. As Web services, they will be available for use in a network such as the Web with well-defined interfaces that are implementation-independent. These services will be exposed for use by clients without them having to be concerned with how the service will execute their requests. Repositories should be able to plug them into their own cataloguing environments and experiment with automatic metadata generation under more ‘real-life’ circumstances than hitherto. Secondly, and more importantly (in view of the relatively poor quality of current tools) they enabled the project to experiment with the use of a high-level ontology for describing metadata generation tools. The value of an ontology being used in this way should be felt as higher quality tools (such as PaperBase?) emerge. The high-level ontology is part of a MetaTools system architecture that consists of various components to describe, register and discover services. Low level definitions within a service ontology are mapped to higher-level human-understandable semantic descriptions contained within a MetaTools ontology. A user interface enables service providers register their service in a public registry. This registry is used by consumers to find services that match certain criteria. If the registry has such a service, it provides the consumer with a contract and an endpoint address for that service. The terms in the MetaTools ontology can, in turn, be part of a higher-level ontology that describes the preservation domain as a whole. The team believes that an ontology-aided approach to service discovery, as employed by the MetaTools project, is a practical solution. A stage 3 technical report was also written.

Project – MetaTools

Project Name: Metatools

Programme Name: Repositories and Preservation Programme

Strand: Tools and Innovation

JISC Project URI: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/programme_rep_pres/tools/metatools.aspx

Project URI: http://www.ahds.ac.uk/about/projects/metatools/

Start Date: 15 March 2007

End Date: 15 September 2008

Governance: Integrated Information Environment Committee (JIIE), Repositories and preservation advisory group

Contact Name and Role: Dr Malcolm Polfreman – (Project Manager)

Brief project description:

To develop a methodology for evaluating metadata creation tools. To Compare the quality of currently available metadata generation tools. To develop, test and disseminate prototype web services that integrate the best metadata generation tools and functionality.

Name of Trawler: Mahendra Mahey

Project Outputs are not available as yet (though project was supposed to finish in September).

According to the project plan the outputs will be:

  • Develop a methodology for evaluating metadata generation tools
  • Compare the quality of currently available metadata generation tools
  • Develop, test and disseminate prototype web services that integrate the best metadata generation tools and functionality.