Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2021.9.4.1

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)
Publication Information
Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice / v.9, no.4, 2021 , pp. 1-14 More about this Journal
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
alternative format material; metadata framework; people with disabilities; metadata interoperability;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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.
2 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/.
3 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.
4 Coyle, K. (2016). The evolving catalog. American Libraries, 47(1/2), 48-53. https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2016/01/04/cataloging-evolves/.
5 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.   DOI
6 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.   DOI
7 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.   DOI
8 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.   DOI
9 Gardner, S. A. (2012). The trouble with MARC, and metadata alternatives. Library Conference Presentations and Speeches, 78. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/library_talks/78.
10 Hider, P. (2012). Information resource description: Creating and managing metadata. Facet.
11 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.
12 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.   DOI
13 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.   DOI
14 Irvall, B., & Nielsen, G. S. (2005). Access to libraries for persons with disabilities - checklist. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions.
15 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.   DOI
16 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.
17 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.   DOI
18 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.
19 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.   DOI
20 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.
21 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.
22 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.   DOI
23 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
24 Moledo, A. (2018, February 28). Accessibility guidelines for public libraries - European accessibility act. Paper presented at the IFLA LPD Symposium, Brussels, Belgium.
25 National Library for the Disabled. (2016). Direct Rapid EasyAccessible Material Service. http://dream.nl.go.kr/dream/index.do.
26 Thomale, J. (2010). Interpreting MARC: Where's the bibliographic data? Code4Lib Journal, 11. https://journal.code4lib.org/articles/3832.
27 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.   DOI
28 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.
29 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.
30 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.   DOI