Summary
Through discussions and additional work, Metadata 2020 project participants have now created 4-6 month project plans for intended execution between May and October 2018, and in some cases have already started to advance the work. Participants are also benefiting from a useful exchange of ideas in meetings. Thanks to everyone giving up their time and contributing their expertise to this important work.
1. Researcher Communications
Led by: Carly Strasser
- Review existing surveys and articles surrounding researcher attitudes to metadata
- Consider assigning a student to conduct a literature review
- Examine publishers who have improved metadata over last 2 years, and interview them about possible reasons (including how they may have encouraged authors to deposit more complete metadata)
- Conduct informal interviews to researchers in different fields to inform survey questions
- Create survey
- Find channels for survey distribution
- Collect results
2. Metadata Recommendations and Element Mappings
Led by: Jim Swainston
- Identify list of metadata schemas that are in use (“Metadata Schema Index”)
- Share list of schemas with MD2020 community to see if there are any missing and to get feedback on which are most used
- Collaborate with Project 5 to discuss list of tags/elements in each of the schemas of interest and identify concepts that cut across them
- Map concepts and element names in a table
- Produce diagram/poster to highlight similarities and differences
3. Defining the Terms We Use About Metadata
Led by: Scott Plutchak
- Pilot researcher interviews surrounding metadata at Experimental Biology conference
- In consultation with other project and community groups, refine questions per community into a fuller survey for circulation surrounding metadata terminology
- In alignment with other community groups, distribute survey(s) and analyze results
- Contribute to central list of schema (P.2)
- Contribute to P.5’s list of elements where needed
- Considering developing a “glossary” to clarify terminology
4. Incentives for Improving Metadata Quality
Led by: Fiona Counsell
- Discuss illustration of metadata flow through scholarly communications in consultation with community groups
- In consultation with community groups, start to develop fuller lists of incentives
- Create a detailed list of outputs for phase 2 of the project
- Gather material for re-use in business cases
- Align incentives list with P.5’s best practice guidelines
- Discuss outreach & education plans for time when first content is available for distribution, including proposals for upcoming conferences
5. Shared Best Practice and Principles
Led by: Howard Ratner and Jennifer Kemp
- Share and discuss list of tags/elements
- Survey Metadata 2020 population for best practices resources
- Catalog and publish list of best practices resources
- Create set of principles (e.g., FAIR)
- Follow up with hosting platforms and consultants that work with them to include what is included in RFPs, etc.
- Create white paper / statement to the community
6. Metadata Evaluation and Guidance
Led by: Ted Habermann
- Populate Schemas, Tools and Guidance Information
- Review existing evaluation tools and identify what they are evaluating (completeness, consistency, linking, quality, other).
- Identify advantages/disadvantages of current evaluation tools and make recommendations for use
- Together with Project 5, create a guidance document for evaluation tool use for multiple communities and/or create a white paper or statement to the wider scholarly communications community
- Consider where there might be gaps in evaluation resources and where relevant, scope out the needs for ideal additional tools
- Complete Project 5’s best practices resources survey