Metadata Implementation for Building Cross-Institutional Repositories: Lessons Learned from the Liberal Arts Scholarly Repository (LASR)

Abstract

ABSTRACT:Institutional repositories are an exciting innovation in scholarly communication and liberal arts institutions have a unique opportunity to create repository collections that reflect their tradition. However, the challenges of cost, staffing, infrastructure, standardized metadata, and content recruitment that are part and parcel of developing institutional repositories may be daunting to individual liberal arts institutions. The idea that multiple, like-minded institutions could join forces to share their efforts, unique challenges, and maximize their efficiencies grew into the Liberal Arts Scholarly Repository (LASR). Initial steps in this collaboration included the development of a group mission and a statement of collection policies. Technical specifications and metadata best practices were developed to facilitate searching and to ensure the interoperability of the repository. This article outlines the history of the project and the process of collaborating on metadata standards.

Intellectual structure of the institutional repository field: A co-word analysis

“…The fourth domain is interoperability with metadata. Issues of the methodology to be mutually operated as content is stored in the institutional repository, that is, the standardization of the OAI protocol [12] and metadata, quality improvement [13] and authority control [14] can be included here. The fifth domain is a digital preservation problem [15].…”

The Types, Frequencies, and Findability of Disciplinary Grey Literature within Prominent Subject Databases and Academic Institutional Repositories

“…For some institutions these time requirements can be a significant challenge. In the Liberal Arts Scholarly Repository (LASR), a shared repository for several small liberal arts institutions, staff sizes are small, and repository duties are in addition to their current responsibili-ties (Costanza et al, 2009). Examples like this could explain why some repositories used several broad categories instead of allowing users to search by document type.…”

“…Another factor at many institutions is technology support. Server space or the support of a digital assets management system may not be among the top priorities for some institutions (Costanza et al, 2009).…”

“…One study looking at the "dc.publisher" field found that it contained either the name of the creators' institution, the department to which they belonged, or no information at all. Some institutions use different fields all together, such as "dc.description.sponsorship" or "dc.contributor," to describe institutional affiliation (Costanza et al, 2009). This makes it difficult not only for users who are trying to locate the materials, but also for librarians who have to create or edit the metadata records.…”