8) Artifact name: LI862 Blue Ox Toastmasters History: Metadata in Dublin ore, MODS, and VSA 4.

00 [Individual assignment; author is Harvey Schowe, Toastmasters District 7 Historian, Type: Project (matrix) MLS Outcome: P.O. 1, P.O. 3, P.O. 4 MLS Values: P.V. 1, P.V. 2, P.V. 3 Reflective Statement According to the Fall 2012 syllabus, the LI862 course is described like this:
The course focuses on selected topics of current significance within the context of information technology. Issues in hardware, software and thoughtware in the context of information studies will be analyzed. The dynamic relationship among computers, video, telecommunication, mass storage devices, and audio will be explored. (Syllabus, LI862 Part 2 Fall 2012, Melissa Messina).

I took both parts of this two-part metadata course, because the second part provided the opportunity to practice a metadata scheme for an existing collection. Doing this project allowed me to experience getting a project out to the community, while making it findable. The main text, Metadata for Digital Collections, was a wonderful resource, in my opinion, for instructions on how to create metadata. Miller (2011) provides a true handbook, which explains why good metadata are so crucial to enhance the findability of resources, for both digital copies and website collections which are born digital. Miller (2011) also demonstrates, with excellent examples, four metadata schemes. The piece de resistance lay in nicely-designed charts with all four metadata scheme placed one beneath the other, showing how the same field is be coded (or not coded) in a specific metadata scheme. In addition to this visual, I found more discussion on more subtle variations of certain fields and more detail on the more difficult-tounderstand fields. These I appreciated immensely. The four metadata schemes I learned were Dublin Core, Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), Visual Resources Association (VRA 3.0 and VRA 4.0). Each scheme has its own peculiarities and special fits for certain objects. For example, I found Dublin Core more suitable for text and photo collections, while VRAs are more useful for, say, museum objects.

This artifact is a matrix that describes certain artifacts from the District 7 history The District 7 Historian, Harvey Schowe, provided collections of historical photographs and documents for me to attempt to describe with metadata. It was exciting to me, as I belong to several Toastmasters clubs in this District and find the collection fascinating. The file folders for District 7 History years for the metadata project are:
http://studentaccess.emporia.edu/~ksemprev/District http://studentaccess.emporia.edu/~ksemprev/District http://studentaccess.emporia.edu/~ksemprev/District http://studentaccess.emporia.edu/~ksemprev/District http://studentaccess.emporia.edu/~ksemprev/District http://studentaccess.emporia.edu/~ksemprev/District http://studentaccess.emporia.edu/~ksemprev/District History History History History History History History 1950.pdf 1951.pdf 1952.pdf 1953.pdf 1954.pdf 1955.pdf 1958.pdf

In doing this project, I was able to try my hand at Dublin Core, MODS, and VRA 4.0, which are metadata standards with rules and authorities. One of the biggest lessons for me was why there are different metadata schemes: some simply work or do not work. For example, I saw why VRA 4.0 works best for describing pieces of a museum collection, but not documents. I also saw what meticulous work the District Historian did for this project. The following outcomes listed in the LI862 course syllabus were:
1. Knowledgably discuss essential concepts, issues, and terminology related to metadata theory, standards, and applications used by cultural heritage organizations. 2. Critically assess and implement different approaches to metadata creation, storage, management, and publication within different information communities for different purposes. 3. Create descriptive metadata for digital resources using selected metadata structure, content, value, and encoding standards. 4. Design and document metadata schemes and application profiles to fulfill the functional requirements of specific collections and user communities. 5. Apply basic metadata quality metrics to evaluate the quality, interoperability, and shareability of descriptive metadata. 6. Qualify for application to metadata internships or entry-level metadata specialist/librarian positions in cultural heritage institutions. (Syllabus, LI862 Part 2 Fall 2012, Melissa Messina).

This project met all six of these syllabus outcomes magnificently. I truly enjoyed practicing different metadata schemes. Besides, I learned some

new words: findablilty, searchability, and shareability. Had I forgone Metadata, Part 2, I would have missed the best! References Abbas, J. (2010). Structures for Organizing Knowledge. New York: NealSchumann. American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author. Miller, S. J. (2011). Metadata for digital collections: A how-to-do-it manual. New York: Neal-Schuman. ISBN: 978-1555707460. Miller, S. J. (2011). Metadata for digital collections: A how-to-do-it manual. New York: Neal-Schuman. ISBN: 978-1555707460. Schowe, Harvey. (2009).District 7 History 1950-1959. Editor [Specific years used for metadata project: 1950, 1951, 1953, 1954,1955, and 1958].