Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice

Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (한국과학기술정보연구원 과학기술정보센터)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Addressing the Challenges of Describing Alternative Format Materials: A Metadata Framework to Enhance Information Accessibility of People with Disabilities

  • Lee, Seungmin (Department of Library and Information Science, Chung-Ang University)
  • Received : 2021.05.27
  • Accepted : 2021.11.01
  • Published : 2021.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Library communities face many problems and limitations in describing alternative format materials based on the traditional MAchine Readable Cataloging (MARC) structure. To address these problems, this research proposes an XML-based descriptive metadata framework that establishes general but fundamental bibliographic aspects of various alternative format materials by providing core elements that are essential in describing these materials. Different from existing bibliographic structures, the proposed metadata framework can represent a fundamental descriptive structure by establishing four upper-level categories, 17 core elements, and 10 sub-elements in a hierarchical structure optimized to alternative format materials. By using this principal descriptive structure, the proposed metadata framework can guide different institutions in the creation of bibliographic records for these materials in a consistent way. It is also expected to address the difficulties in describing alternative format materials in library communities and enhance the information accessibility of individuals with various types of disabilities. In addition, the proposed metadata framework is an alternative approach which functions as a mediator between heterogeneous characteristics of alternative format materials and the existing bibliographic structures in library communities.

Keywords

1. INTRODUCTION

A library is a social institution that should provide high-quality information services for all community users, including people with disabilities. Since the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, there has been increasing interest in information accessibility in the library communities for people with disabilities, along with the development of various alternative format materials, including braille books, audio books, and digital versions of general books (Nail-Chiwetalu, 2000). Alternative format material is generally defined as various formats that have been developed and used to support the information activities of people with disabilities (Nail-Chiwetalu, 2000). The library communities in many countries have increased provision of alternative format materials to improve information accessibility of people with disabilities (Lee et al., 2013).[1] 

However, there remain barriers that

 

However, one of the problems of the DREAM database is that most of the bibliographic records were created in the KORMARC formation, which is one of the MARC formats for library collections in South Korea. Because of the fundamental limitations of the MARC format, the records contained in the database may describe only a few, but essential, bibliographic aspects of these materials, which may result in too-simple and incomplete resource description. Fig. 1 shows a bibliographic record in the DREAM database using the KORMARC format.

2.2

2.3

 

Fig. 1. KORMARC (Korean Machine Readable Cataloging) record for an alternative format material.

 

\(\frac{1}{2}\)

References

  1. Atinmo, M. I. (2007). Setting up a computerized catalog and distribution database of alternative format materials for blind and visually impaired persons in Nigeria. Library Trends, 55(4), 830-846. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2007.0035.
  2. Baker, T., Coyle, K., & Petiya, S. (2014). Multi-entity models of resource description in the semantic web: A comparison of FRBR, RDA and BIBFRAME. Library Hi Tech, 32(4), 562-582. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-08-2014-0081.
  3. Carey, K. (2007). The opportunities and challenges of the digital age: A blind user's perspective. Library Trends, 55(4), 767-784. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2007.0030.
  4. Coyle, K. (2007). The library catalog: Some possible futures. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(3), 414-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2007.03.001.
  5. Coyle, K. (2016). The evolving catalog. American Libraries, 47(1/2), 48-53. https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2016/01/04/cataloging-evolves/.
  6. Gardner, S. A. (2012). The trouble with MARC, and metadata alternatives. Library Conference Presentations and Speeches, 78. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/library_talks/78.
  7. Hider, P. (2012). Information resource description: Creating and managing metadata. Facet.
  8. IMS Global Learning Consortium. (2002). IMS guidelines for developing accessible learning applications. Version 1.0 white paper. https://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility/accessiblevers/sec5.html.
  9. Irvall, B., & Nielsen, G. S. (2005). Access to libraries for persons with disabilities - checklist. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions.
  10. Knight, F. T. (2011). Break on through to the other side: The library and linked data. TALL Quarterly, 30(1), 1-7. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1815487.
  11. Kroeger, A. (2013). The road to BIBFRAME: The evolution of the idea of bibliographic transition into a post-MARC future. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 51(8), 873-890. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2013.823584.
  12. Lee, S., Nam, T., & Nam, Y. (2013). Revising cataloging rules and standards to meet the needs of people with disabilities: A proposal for South Korea. Library Resources & Technical Services, 57(1), 18-29. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.57n1.18.
  13. Linley, R. (2000). Working Paper 11: Public libraries, disability and social exclusion. The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries. http://eprints.rclis.org/6283/1/lic084.pdf
  14. Moledo, A. (2018, February 28). Accessibility guidelines for public libraries - European accessibility act. Paper presented at the IFLA LPD Symposium, Brussels, Belgium.
  15. Nail-Chiwetalu, B. (2000). Guidelines for accessing alternative format educational materials. Library of Congress. http://https://webharvest.gov/peth04/20041025093217/http://loc.gov/nls/guidelines.htm.
  16. National Center on Accessible Educational Materials. (2011). NIMAS files best practices. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wd6g0dwgOW4J:www.cast.org/binaries/content/assets/common/publications/aem/nimas-files-best-practices-2011.docx+&cd=1&hl=ko&ct=clnk&gl=kr.
  17. National Library for the Disabled. (2016). Direct Rapid EasyAccessible Material Service. http://dream.nl.go.kr/dream/index.do.
  18. Oliver, C. (2009). FRBR and RDA: Advances in resource description for multiple format resources. https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/005002/f2/005002-2200-e.pdf.
  19. Rightscom. (2007). Funding and governance of library and information services for visually impaired people: international case studies. Part 2: Country studies. http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/access/0705_IFLA-rightscom/parttwo.pdf.
  20. Roine, L. (2017, January 27). The new directions in bibliographic control: The status quo and prospects of RDA cataloguing code and Bibframe cataloguing format. Paper presented at the BOBCATSSS 2017, Tampere, Finland.
  21. Round Table on Information Access for People with Print Disabilities (2018). Guidelines for producing accessible Etext. https://printdisability.org/guidelines/guidelines-foraccessible-e-text-2018/.
  22. Sharma, K., Marjit, U., & Biswas, U. (2018). MAchine readable cataloging to MAchine understandable data with distributed big data management. Journal of Library Metadata, 18(1), 13-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2018.1461177.
  23. Sprochi, A. (2016). Where are we headed? Resource description and access, bibliographic framework, and the functional requirements for bibliographic records library reference model. International Information & Library Review, 48(2), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2016.1176455.
  24. Tennant, R. (2002). MARC must die. Library Journal, 127(17), 26-28. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=LJw73cAAAAAJ&citation_for_view=LJw73cAAAAAJ:d1gkVwhDpl0C.
  25. Tharani, K. (2015). Linked data in libraries: A case study of harvesting and sharing bibliographic metadata with BIBFRAME. Information Technology and Libraries, 34(1), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v34i1.5664.
  26. Thomale, J. (2010). Interpreting MARC: Where's the bibliographic data? Code4Lib Journal, 11. https://journal.code4lib.org/articles/3832.
  27. Todaro, A. J. (2005). Library services for people with disabilities in Argentina. New Library World, 106(5/6), 253-268. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074800510595869.
  28. Urban, R. J. (2014, October 8-11). The 1:1 principle in the age of linked data. In W. Moen & A. Rushing (Eds.), Proceedings of International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications 2014 (pp. 119-128), Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.
  29. Walker, W., & Keenan, T. M. (2015). Do you hear what I see? Assessing accessibility of digital commons and CONTENTdm. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 27(2), 69-87. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=ml_pubs. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2015.1029395
  30. Westlind, M. (2008). Dynamic materials force dynamic cataloguing: Accessible materials in a new digital age. Library Review, 57(6), 424-429. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530810886698.