Metadata Standard for Continuous Preservation, Discovery, and Reuse of Research Data in Repositories by Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (a)
- Structure—data model or architecture used to hold the metadata and the way the metadata statements are expressed. As examples, we can mention the RDF metadata architecture and the XML METS schema.
- (b)
- Semantics—names and meanings of the elements and their refinements.
- (c)
- Contents—statements or instructions of how and what values should be assigned to the elements.
- (a)
- Identified metadata types and their importance on research data preservation in
- (b)
- HEIs.
- (c)
- Ascertained the creation and application of metadata standards in HEIs.
- (d)
- Examined the available and online metadata standards to support the preservation, discovery, and reuse of research data in HEIs repositories.
- (e)
- Mentioned challenges impeding the use of metadata standards and providing potential solutions.
2. Methods
2.1. Data Sources and Search Strategy
2.2. Screening
- (a)
- Relevance for the review question.
- (b)
- Date of publication: 2003 to 2023.
- (c)
- Geographical location: Higher education institutions.
- (d)
- Types of publication: Research articles.
- (e)
- Nature of research: Systematic review.
- (f)
- Language: English.
2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
2.4. Data Extraction and Coding
3. Findings of the Search Results
3.1. Metadata Types and Their Importance on Research Data Preservation in HEIs
3.2. Descriptive Metadata
3.3. Structural Metadata
3.4. Administrative Metadata
- (a)
- (b)
- Rights metadata provide information about the rights held in and over the resource, whereas the license is a sub-property of the rights, which is defined as the legal document giving official permission to do something with the resource [18].
- (c)
- Preservation metadata contain information required for the long-term management of digital data and the migration to other digital formats as software and hardware change continuously [14,18]. Preservation description metadata are necessary for the long-term archiving of research data, such as provenance, checksums, and unique identifiers [14].
- (a)
- Content based on what an object contains or is about, such as subject headings;
- (b)
- Context based on factors related to the creators of the object, such as authors, who, what, why, where, and how; and
- (c)
3.5. The Creation and Application of Metadata Standards in HEIs
- (a)
- To create a standard set of guidelines for information tagging.
- (b)
- To guarantee uniformity in the application of metadata.
- (c)
- To encourage resource sharing and application interoperability.
- (d)
- To open the door for cutting-edge technology.
3.6. Openly Available Metadata Standards to Support the Preservation, Discovery, and Reuse of Research Data in Repositories
3.7. Challenges Impeding the Use of Metadata Standards and Provide Potential Solutions
- (i)
- Challenges
3.8. Lack of Metadata and Metadata Standard Policy and Guidelines
3.9. Lack of National Web Archiving
3.10. Vocabulary as Situated in Language
3.11. Lack of Expertise and Resources
3.12. Repositories Designs
3.13. Lack of Strategic Partnerships
- (ii)
- Potential solutions
- (a)
- Research data should be accompanied by a unique PID, such as the handle system [45].
- (b)
- Develop new metadata standards where required [45].
- (c)
- (d)
- Discuss and present the need and requirements with HEIs’ management for support such as funds, tools and expertise for the creation and implementation of effective metadata standards and repositories [33].
- (e)
- (f)
- Establish and improve the working relationship between ICTs and repository administrators [33].
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mokrane, M.; Parsons, M. Learning from the International Polar Year to build the future of polar data management. Data Sci. J. 2014, 13, IFPDA-15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, D.; Crabtree, J.; Dillo, I.; Downs, R.R.; Edmunds, R.; Giaretta, D.; De Giusti, M.; L’Hours, H.; Hugo, W.; Jenkyns, R.; et al. The TRUST Principles for digital repositories. Sci. Data 2020, 7, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wilkinson, M.D.; Dumontier, M.; Aalbersberg, I.J.; Appleton, G.; Axton, M.; Baak, A.; Blomberg, N.; Boiten, J.W.; da Silva Santos, L.B.; Bourne, P.E.; et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 2016, 3, 160018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bugbee, K.; le Roux, J.; Sisco, A.; Kaulfus, A.; Staton, P.; Woods, C.; Dixon, V.; Lynnes, C.; Ramachandran, R. Improving discovery and use of NASA’s earth observation data through metadata quality assessments. Data Sci. J. 2021, 17, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunzke, R.; Hartmann, V.; Jejkal, T.; Kollai, H.; Prabhune, A.; Hendrik, H.; Deicke, A.; Dressler, C.; Dolhoff, J.; Stanek, J.; et al. The MASi repository service: Comprehensive, metadata-driven, and multi-community research data management. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 94, 879–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Formenton, D.; de Souza-Gracioso, L. Metadata standards in web archiving technological resources of archived websites. Digit. J. Libr. Inf. Sci. 2022, 20, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riley, J. Understanding Metadata: What Is Metadata, and What Is It for? National Information Standards Organization (NISO): Baltimore, MD, USA, 2017; pp. 1–45. [Google Scholar]
- Gartner, R.; Lavoie, B. Preservation Metadata (2nd Edition), DPC Technology Watch Report 13-3 May 2013. Available online: https://www.dpconline.org (accessed on 4 May 2023).
- Park, J.; Tosaka, Y. Metadata creation practices in digital repositories and collections: Schemata, selection criteria, and interoperability. Inf. Technol. Libr. 2013, 29, 104–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smith, I.; Breytenbach, A.; Groenewald, R. Digital Library Standards and Metadata: The Basics. IGBIS Seminar. University of Pretoria 2007. Available online: https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/ (accessed on 6 May 2023).
- Igere, M.A. Metadata and resource management in the digital age: A duo-decadal bibliometric-Narrative map and assessment. Libr. Waves A Biannu. Peer Rev. J. Libr. Inf. Sci. 2023, 8, 139–157. [Google Scholar]
- Gilliland, A.J. Setting the Stage: Introduction to Metadata 2008. Available online: http://www.getty.edu/research/publications/electronic_publications/intrometadata/setting.html (accessed on 4 May 2023).
- Anil Hirwade, M. A study of metadata standards. Library Hi Tech News 2011, 28, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christianson, D.S.; Varadharajan, C.; Christoffersen, B.; Detto, M.; Faybishenko, B.; Gimenez, B.O.; Hendrix, V.; Jardine, K.J.; Juarez, R.N.; Pastorello, G.Z.; et al. A metadata reporting Framework (FRAMES) For Synthesis of Ecohydrological Observations. Ecol. Inform. 2017, 42, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Donaldson, D.R.; Zegler-Poleska, E.; Yarmey, L. Data managers’ perspectives on OAIS designated communities and the FAIR principles: Mediation, tools, and conceptual models. J. Doc. 2020, 76, 1261–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, R.D.; Shankar, K.; Eschenfelder, K.R. Two views of the data documentation initiative: Stakeholders, collaboration, and metadata standards creation. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 455–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preservation Metadata Implementation Strategies (PREMIS). Data Dictionary for Preservation Metadata, Version 3.0-2013. Available online: http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/v3/index.html/ (accessed on 5 May 2023).
- Wu, M.; Richard, S.M.; Verhey, C.; Castro, L.J.; Cecconi, B.; Juty, N. An analysis of crosswalks from research data schemas to schema.org. Data Intell. 2023, 5, 100–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Sugimoto, S. Provenance description of metadata application profiles for long-term maintenance of metadata schemas. J. Doc. 2018, 74, 36–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radio, E.; Rios, F.; Oliver, J.C.; Hickson, B.; Wallace, N. Manifestations of metadata structures in research datasets and their ontic implications. J. Libr. Metadata 2018, 17, 161–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coyle, K.; Hillmann, D. Resource Description and Access (RDA) cataloguing rules for the 20th Century. D-Lib Mag. 2007, 13, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, D.J.; Stvilia, B. Practices of research data curation in institutional repositories: A qualitative view from repository staff. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0173987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pampel, H.; Vierkant, P.; Scholze, F.; Bertelmann, R.; Kindling, M.; Klump, J.; Goebelbecker, H.-J.; Gundlach, J.; Schirmbacher, P.; Dierolf, U. Making research data repositories visible: The re3data.org registry. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e78080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Castro, F.F. Functional requirements for bibliographic description in digital environments. Transinformação 2016, 28, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Greenberg, J.; McClellan, S.; Rauch, C.; Zhao, X.; Kelly, M.; An, Y.; Kunze, J.; Orenstein, R.; Porter, C.; Meschke, V.; et al. Building community consensus for scientific metadata with YAMZ. Data Intell. 2023, 5, 242–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ball, A.; Greenberg, J.; Jeffery, K.; Koskela, R. RDA Metadata Standards Directory Working Group-Final Report 2016. Available online: https://www.rd-alliance.org/system/files/MSDWG-Final-Report.pdf/ (accessed on 10 April 2023).
- Mayernik, M.S.; Choudhury, G.S.; DiLauro, T.; Metsger, E.; Pralle, B.; Rippin, M.; Duerr, R. The data conservancy instance: Infrastructure and organizational services for research data curation. D-Lib Mag. 2012, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pence, W.D.; Chiappetti, L.G.; Page, R.A.; Stobie, E. Definition of the Flexible Image Transport System (FITS), version 3.0. Astron. Astrophys. 2010, 524, 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thornely, J. Metadata and the deployment of Dublin Core at State Library of Queensland and Education Queensland, Australia. OCLC systems and services. Int. Digit. Libr. Perspect. 2000, 16, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, L.M.; Zeng, M.L. Metadata interoperability and standardization: A study of methodology part 1: Achieving interoperability at the schema level. D-Lib Mag. 2006, 12, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schatz, B. A brief primer on intuitional repositories. Against Grain 2012, 24, 26–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Burke, M.; Tarver, H.; Phillips, M.E.; Zavalina, O. Using existing metadata standards and tools for a digital language archive: A balancing act. Electron. Libr. 2022, 40, 579–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chapepa, G.G.; Ngwira, F.; Mapulanga, P. Metadata creation practices at the Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources library’s institutional repository. Digit. Libr. Perspect. 2023, 39, 205–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shajitha, C. Digital curation practices in institutional repositories in South India: A study. Glob. Knowl. Mem. Commun. 2020, 69, 557–578. [Google Scholar]
- Harrower, N.; Maryl, M.; Biro, T.; Immenhauser, B. Sustainable and FAIR Data Sharing in the Humanities: Recommendations of the ALLEA Working Group E-Humanities 2020. Available online: https://www.allea.org (accessed on 4 May 2023).
- Poole, A.H.; Garwood, D.A. Digging into data management in public-funded, international research in digital humanities. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2020, 71, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halevi, G.; Moed, H.; Bar-Ilan, J. Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation: Review of the literature. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 823–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boeker, M.; Vach, W.; Motschall, E. Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: Good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2013, 13, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kgoroeadira, R. Promoting Entrepreneurship to Foster Economic Development: A Review of Market Failure and Public Policy. Cranfield University 2010. Available online: https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/6901/1/Kgoroeadira_Reabetswe_Thesis_2010.pdf/ (accessed on 27 April 2023).
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kohl, C.; McIntosh, E.J.; Unger, S.; Haddaway, N.R.; Kecke, S.; Schiemann, J.; Wilhelm, R. Online tools supporting the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and systematic maps: A case study on CADIMA and review of existing tools. Environ. Evid. 2018, 7, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Levett, P. Systematic Review: Data Extraction, Coding, Study Characteristics, Results 2023. Available online: https://www.guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu (accessed on 7 May 2023).
- Mayernik, M.S.; Liapich, Y. The role of metadata and vocabulary standards in enabling scientific data interoperability: A study of earth system science data facilities. J. eSci. Librariansh. 2022, 11, e619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.; Gil, M.-S.; Nguyen, M.C.; Won, H.; Moon, Y.-S. Comprehensive knowledge archive network harvester improvement for efficient open-data collection and management. ETRI J. 2021, 43, 835–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klöcking, M.; Wyborn, L.; Lehnert, K.A.; Ware, B.; Prent, A.M.; Profeta, L.; Kohlmann, F.; Noble, W.; Bruno, I.; Lambart, S.; et al. Community recommendations for geochemical data, services, and analytical capabilities in the 21st century. Geochim. Et Cosmochim. Actan. 2023, 351, 192–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mena-Garcés, E.; García-Barriocanal, E.; Sicilia, M.; Sánchez-Alonso, S. Moving from dataset metadata to semantics in ecological research: A case in translating EML to OWL. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2011, 4, 1622–1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dietrich, D. Metadata management in a data staging repository. J. Libr. Metadata 2010, 10, 79–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinhart, G. DataStaR: An institutional approach to research data curation. IASSIST Q. 2007, 31, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.R. Metadata quality in digital repositories: A survey of the current state of the art. Cat. Classif. Q. 2009, 47, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, H.C. Descriptive metadata for scientific data repositories: A comparison of information scientist and scientist organizing behaviours. J. Libr. Metadata 2014, 14, 24–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamzah, M.; Sobey, A. The use of business metadata to support decision making processes. Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol. 2012, 3, 449–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Zhang, J.; Guo, J. Constructing data warehouses based on operational metadata-driven builder pattern. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on International Conference on Logistics and Service Services (LISS), Barcelona, Spain, 27–29 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Razavi, R.; Gharipour, A.; Gharipour, M. Depression screening using mobile phone usage metadata: A machine learning approach. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2020, 27, 522–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wierling, A.; Schwanitz, V.J.; Altinci, S.; Bałazińska, M.; Barber, M.J.; Biresselioglu, M.E.; Burger-Scheidlin, C.; Celino, M.; Demir, M.H.; Dennis, R.; et al. FAIR metadata standards for low carbon energy research: A Review of practices and how to advance. Energies 2021, 14, 6692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/IEC 11179. Information Technology Metadata Registries (MDR): Part 1: Framework 2023. Available online: https://www.iso.org (accessed on 20 April 2023).
- Market Data Definition Book (MDDB) Database Schemas MDDL 3.0–XML for Market Data 2009. Available online: http://www.mddl.org/ (accessed on 27 April 2023).
- OASIS Standard. Metadata for OASIS Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0-2005. Available online: http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/ (accessed on 7 May 2023).
- Harvey, M.J.; McLean, A.; Rzepa, H.S. A metadata-driven approach to data repository design. Cheminform 2017, 9, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Brownlee, B. Research data and repository metadata: Policy and technical issues at the University of Sydney Library. Cat. Classif. Q. 2009, 49, 370–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marco, D. Challenges of Metadata Silos 2021. Available online: https://www.ewsolutions.com/data-management-university/ (accessed on 30 April 2023).
- Layton, J. The Metadata Storage Problem 2013. Available online: https://www.enterprisestorageforum.com (accessed on 27 April 2023).
- Sulehri, I.G.; Warraich, N.F. Mapping the metadata challenges in libraries: A systematic review. Libr. Philos. Pract. 2020, 4679. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4679/ (accessed on 6 May 2023).
- Chapman, J.W. The roles of the metadata librarian in a research library. Libr. Resour. Tech. Serv. 2011, 51, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
---|---|
Articles published in the English Language | Articles that were not published in the English Language |
Articles that were published between the year 2003 and 2023 | Articles that were published before the year 2003 and after the year 2023 |
Literature with substantial focus on metadata, metadata standards, research data, research data preservation, research data discovery, research data reuse, repositories. | Literature which did not focus on metadata, metadata standards, research data, research data preservation, research data discovery, research data reuse, repositories. |
Peer reviewed research articles | Systematic reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analysis, rapid reviews, government and non-governmental organisation reports and academic dissertations and theses, editorials, book reviews, unpublished manuscripts, and conference abstracts. |
Survey, qualitative (documentary, semi-structured interview, observation, case studies), and use cases. | Case-control, randomised control trials. |
Author(s) | Title | Journal | Study Design | Findings |
---|---|---|---|---|
Anil Hirwade [13] | A study of metadata standards | Library Hi Tech News | A survey was developed to examine the use, planning and evaluation of metadata standards. | Twenty metadata standards, that are OAI compliant, were studied including METS and MODS indicated general metadata standards, and learning object metadata (LOM) as educational materials and learning objects. |
Chapepa, Ngwira, and Mapulanga [33] | Digital Library Perspectives | Qualitative approach (interview and documentary review) with a case study strategy that focuses on the in-depth holistic and in-context examination of one or more cases | Dublin Core was selected as the only metadata standard to create and implement metadata | |
Christianson et al. [14] | A metadata reporting framework (FRAMES) for synthesis of ecohydrological observations | Ecological Informatics | Scientist-centred design, observation and interview with data originators and data consumers | The study developed a framework for reporting data and metadata for earth systems. FRAMES utilises best practices for data and metadata organization enabling consistent data reporting and compatibility with a variety of standardised data protocols. |
Donaldson, Zegler-Poleska, and Yarmey [15] | Data managers’ perspectives on OAIS designated communities and the FAIR principles: mediation, tools, and conceptual models. | Journal of Documentation | Semi-structured interview | The use of the open archival information system (OAIS) reference model (ISO-14721) for the internal preservation of data. |
Mayernik and Liapich [43] | The role of metadata and vocabulary standards in enabling scientific data interoperability: A study of earth system science data facilities. | Journal of eScience Librarianship | Case study to examine the consistency of metadata schema and subject vocabulary use within specific communities. | ISO 19115:2003 and DataCite metadata standards are used by more than 40% of the data facilities and repositories. |
Kim et al. [44] | Comprehensive knowledge archive network harvester improvement for efficient open-data collection and management. | Electronics, Telecommunications, and Information (ETRI) Journal | Observing and investigating the functionalities of the Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network (CKAN), an open-source data distribution platform. | The study derives the problems of CKAN in terms of data inconsistency and storage space waste for data deletion. Based on these observations, the study proposed an improved CKAN that provide a new deletion function solving data inconsistency. |
Klöcking et al. [45] | Community recommendations for geochemical data, services, and analytical capabilities in the 21st century. | Geochimica et Cosmochimica Actan. | Case study | The Ecological Metadata Language (EML) is an XML-based metadata specification developed for the description of datasets and their associated context in ecology. The conversion of EML metadata to an ontological form has been addressed in existing observation ontologies, which are able of providing a degree of computational semantics to the description of the datasets, including the reuse of scientific ontologies to express the observed entities and their characteristics |
Mena-Garcés et al. [46] | Moving from dataset metadata to semantics in ecological research: a case in translating EML to OWL | Procedia Computer Science | Observation | The Ecological Metadata Language (EML) is an XML-based metadata specification developed for the description of datasets and their associated context in ecology. The conversion of EML metadata to an ontological form has been addressed in existing observation ontologies, which are able of providing a degree of computational semantics to the description of the datasets, including the reuse of scientific ontologies to express the observed entities and their characteristics. |
Formenton and de Souza-Gracioso [6] | Metadata standards in web archiving technological resources of archived websites. | Digital Journal of Library and Information Science | qualitative, exploratory, and descriptive research was done, using the bibliographic method from a non-systematic inventory together with a review and analysis of the literature content. The Dublin Core, MODS, EAD, visual resources association (VRA) core, PREMIS, and METS standards were selected and analysed. | Dublin Core, MODS, EAD, and VRA Core supported METS and PREMIS in detecting and documenting technical aspects of sites and proving their authenticity, context, and origin. METS can manage archived sites by acting as OAIS information packages, while Dublin Core proved to be an exponent for Web archiving through its use in remarkable area initiatives. |
Wu et al. [18] | Metadata creation practices in digital repositories and collections: schemata, selection criteria, and interoperability. | Data Intelligence | A survey on which metadata schema has been adopted by participating data repositories and presents an analysis of crosswalks from fourteen research data schemas to Schema.org. | Most descriptive metadata are interoperable among the schemas, the most inconsistent mapping is the rights metadata, and a large gap exists in the structural metadata and controlled vocabularies to specify various property values. |
Park and Tosaka [9] | Metadata creation practices in digital repositories and collections: schemata, selection criteria, and interoperability. | Information Technology and Libraries | The study examines the prevailing current state of metadata-creation practices in digital repositories, collections, and libraries, which may include both digitised and born-digital resources. | MARC, AACR2, and LCSH are the most widely used metadata schema, content standard, and subject- controlled vocabulary, respectively. Dublin Core is the second most widely used metadata schema, followed by EAD, MODS, VRA core, and TEI. Qualified Dublin Core’s wider use vis-à-vis Unqualified Dublin Core (40.6 percent versus 25.4 percent) is noteworthy. Existing technological infrastructure and staff expertise also are significant factors contributing to the current use of metadata schemata and controlled vocabularies for subject access across distributed digital repositories and collections. |
Dietrich [46] | Metadata management in a data staging repository. | Journal of Library Metadata | The study reviews DataStaR project by presenting high- level use cases. It follows with a description of DataStaR’s metadata architecture, focusing on the semantic Web components that facilitate metadata reuse and the creation of metadata according to multiple standards. | DataStaR employs a semantic metadata management architecture that provides several key benefits to users and librarians. It uses a Web-based interface to create metadata and ex- port valid XML in multiple standards, the ability to reuse previously created metadata in a straightforward manner, and compatibility with emerging semantic Web technologies. |
Burke et al. [32] | Using existing metadata standards and tools for a digital language archive: A balancing act. | The Electronic Library | Use cases whereas it discusses some of the areas important for representing language materials where both University of North Texas Libraries (UNTL) metadata and CoRSAL metadata practices were adapted to better fit the needs of intended audiences. | All records in the UNT Libraries’ Digital Collections use a uniform metadata scheme (UNTL) based on the Dublin Core standard with added local fields and qualifiers for more specificity and greater flexibility. UNTL has 21 fields including eight that are required: main title, language, content description, subject (2), resource type, format, collection, and institution. |
Themes | Research Article(s) | Main Findings |
---|---|---|
Metadata types and their importance to research data preservation in HEIs | [14,18] | Application of metadata and metadata standards on research data preservation, discovery, and reuse. |
[15,43] | OAIS reference model has been widely adopted as essential in digital preservation and it provides a technical architecture for data repositories. | |
[14] | Repositories or data centres may guide or even dictate the content and format of metadata used for preserving data, using a formal metadata standard. | |
[6,13,14,18] | Three main types of metadata: descriptive, structural, and administrative (administrative—technical, right and preservation) that provide information such as title, author(s), abstract, extent, subject, publisher, keywords, data collection and analysing tools, page numbers, format, date, and the geographic location of the data in the repository, facilitates data discovery, organises electronic resources, promotes interoperability, and supports the curation and preservation of research data in the repository. | |
The creation and application of metadata standards in HEIs | [6,13,14,46] | Involvement of stakeholders such as researchers, students, citizens, librarians, and information and communication technologists (ICT) in HEIs to enhance the creation and development of metadata and metadata standards for their research community members to preserve, discover, and re-use research data in repositories. |
[9,33,45] | Metadata standards can be created by humans (manually) or machines (automatically) using recommended guidelines and applications. However, manual creation requires knowledge of metadata structure schemes, content standards, and controlled vocabulary schemes and repositories designs which can comply with metadata standards for research data to be preserved. | |
Available metadata standards to enhance the preservation, discovery, and reuse of research data in repositories. | [14,18,46] | Openly available metadata standards are available to make research data more valuable for HEIs by making it more discoverable, reusable, and preservable. |
Available metadata standards to enhance the preservation, discovery, and reuse of research data in repositories. | [14,18,46] | Openly available metadata standards are available to make research data more valuable for HEIs by making it more discoverable, reusable, and preservable. |
[6,18] | There are general metadata standards used to describe almost any data, and specific metadata standards that meet the unique requirements of certain industries, domains, and disciplines. There are also generic metadata standards that are widely adopted and easy to use, and domain specific metadata standards that are specialised and richer in vocabulary to be used in a specific discipline. | |
[43,44] | Metadata standards grow out of a community need or through a formal standardisation body, such as W3C—data catalogue vocabulary (DCAT), International Organization for Standards (ISO), International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), and the internet engineering task force (IETF). | |
Challenges impeding the use of metadata standards and investigate potential solutions.
| [9,14,28] | Lack of metadata and metadata standards policy and guidelines, lack of strategic partnerships, and lack of management support. |
| [9,33,45] |
|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mosha, N.F.; Ngulube, P. Metadata Standard for Continuous Preservation, Discovery, and Reuse of Research Data in Repositories by Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Review. Information 2023, 14, 427. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14080427
Mosha NF, Ngulube P. Metadata Standard for Continuous Preservation, Discovery, and Reuse of Research Data in Repositories by Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Review. Information. 2023; 14(8):427. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14080427
Chicago/Turabian StyleMosha, Neema Florence, and Patrick Ngulube. 2023. "Metadata Standard for Continuous Preservation, Discovery, and Reuse of Research Data in Repositories by Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Review" Information 14, no. 8: 427. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14080427