Cadmore media player playing video Metadata Greatest Hits, Music thru the Ages!
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
Metadata Greatest Hits, Music thru the Ages!
Description:
Metadata Greatest Hits, Music thru the Ages!
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/e8c42423-e7e9-489a-a5d4-32fc5e678b95/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H44M33S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/e8c42423-e7e9-489a-a5d4-32fc5e678b95
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/e8c42423-e7e9-489a-a5d4-32fc5e678b95/Metadata Greatest Hits%2c Music thru the Ages!.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=jH2cvdpZL6yIqPz0T%2BiZP0%2F9Qibb%2Bu%2B4HbluaJeNThQ%3D&st=2024-12-21T17%3A17%3A59Z&se=2024-12-21T19%3A22%3A59Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-03-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
Hello Hello. Hey, kindra, how are you doing? All right. How are you this morning? Well, I had some technical difficulties earlier. Couldn't get into the chat, but I made it here, so I'm going to get myself lucky. This is where the magic happens.
Hi, Ana. Hey, Jenny. Let's see, Sean. One you can't see everybody. So want to make sure that we have all our speakers here. John, are you here? And we have Margie and Heather. OK well, hopefully they won't.
Hop in. Sorry, Kendra. Not here yet. Sorry OK, great. So I mentioned I had some technical difficulties. It's great to be here. I couldn't see much of the chat and I couldn't see if there were any questions in the Q&A box.
So I do want to take the opportunity to invite folks to either use the Zoom Q&A, use the Zoom chat, or definitely unmute yourself and ask a question so maybe we can kick off just a. See if there's anyone who had a pent up question. Oh who came up with this idea? Well, it was a collaborative effort.
I will say, if None of you if you haven't been to a nice forum before, I highly recommend it on John and Heather and I met together at the nice forum back in September and it was a wonderful opportunity. There was lots of engagement, there was a great cafe style organizational structure. So you really did get to meet almost everyone at the event and the focus was brainstorming on what kinds of topics could come up for an Plus.
And we had amazing conversations about how to represent names and language, how to represent licenses, and it was wonderful, great stuff. I was so serious at the end of the day. So I grabbed a piece of paper and as a joke, wrote metadata, the musical with some fake songs and had a laugh. And then afterwards on and Heather and John came up and said, hey, if you want to work on this, you know, we'd be happy to do that.
So we zigged a little bit to metadata greatest hits because it's a Preview. We are going to do metadata the musical at esp in Portland. So if you're going to be at esp and if you'd like a role in a musical, please do reach out to us. So we zigged to metadata greatest hits and came up with the music theme. And as you can see from the presentations, everybody just ran with it.
So it was an amazing team effort and Jenny came along and was willing to take a chance on us being a little bit wacky. So we definitely appreciated that. Worth noting that Heather had far more fantastic songs put together than I think that we saw today. Heather had so many great punny metadata songs, so if you ever need your day to be a little bit brightened and you want to see some metadata hits to songs, you know, Heather can absolutely help you.
I will say we failed on one bit. She hoped that we could have the Bengals song the eternal flame, playing in the background when she told the story about pet palooza. So I did jot down some lyrics as to how the eternal flame could be rewritten. I don't know if anybody wants to hear it or not. Maybe too much.
Heather singing. All righty. Yeah people are saying they're recovering from rolling over the floor, so I'm happy they had fun. Yeah so I don't know if we have John or Margie Ortiz Heather yet, but I have some questions that we can kick off with on and Ginny and if John maybe candor, you can help me keep an on the attendees if they're able to join.
So so Ginny, just to start from your perspective, I loved the way you kind of processed how you were interacting with your coworker and thinking about from a, from a research standpoint, how, you know, the importance of metadata, the importance of pids and those kinds of things. If you had to give some advice to others who are here on how they might broach the subject with their more junior colleagues or with authors or editorial board members who might just intersect with one part of the scholarly communications ecosystem.
What kind of advice could you give? Now sure. So I'm going to apologize in advance for how generic I think this advice is. But I really think that it's good advice. You know, my dad always says that you should give people the Reader's Digest version and just tell them the thing that they personally need to know. So I think it's just important that when we're communicating about anything that can seem idiosyncratic, like metadata or one of the myriad other things that we do in scholarly communication that I think if you try to tell your friends and family you work in, they don't know what you're talking about.
But it's just important to think about the person you're talking to and what they care about and what they're probably doing before and after they talk to you. And then to tailor what you're saying to their needs. So that they actually are keyed in to listen to it. Because, you know, even like a lot of the people we work with are like really smart, thoughtful people who want to pay attention to what you're saying.
But for example, right now, all of us are in the midst of like a virtual meeting. And I know many of us probably have actual work meetings later today that they're going to do while they're doing this. So it's just important to make sure that you're leading with the thing that the person will actually listen to and that you're sort of aligning on your values at the beginning of a conversation.
So, for example, when you're talking about fair, I think sometimes when you just talk about trying to have fair data, and I use this example when I was talking, but people just sort of start to zone out because it seems sort of boring, but actually like if you care about research, it's not boring at all. It really is what enables us to use findings beyond just one person's research project, you know, and that's incredible.
So I think that leading with that leading with the fact that you'd like to help people in your institution make their data. So that other people can use it and so that it goes beyond the confines of their lab. Like that's much more exciting than saying that you're going to talk to them about the FAIR principles. So I think it's just framing conversations in a way that pique interest.
Mm-hmm Really interesting to hear you talk about reaching people where they are. I do. As part of my role at delta, think communications with a lot of editorial boards, like if people say, can you come on. And can you give us some high level findings of what's going on in space? And sometimes they will ask me to kind of stay in a workshop type environment and listen to what's going on.
And I participated in one maybe almost a year ago now, and one of the other items on the agenda was whether the publisher should require ORCIDs for corresponding authors. And so the proposal was sort of lobbed out. There was a silence, as you can imagine. And then one person on the editorial board said, oh, I hate when I have to look up my ORCID. I have to do that every time.
And then there was some murmuring, and then that was the end of the conversation and it was decided not to require ORCIDs. Now, I think the way, that should have gone, given that this was a society who was published by a larger publisher as some of the benefits that ORCID could bring should have been introduced before the conversation, so that that like kind of led balloon that was dropped on I hate to look at my ORCID wasn't the loudest voice in the room so may want to think about that also.
So on AI know you spent some time at ORCID. Can you tell us how you first got interested in metadata and identifiers even back when you're a researcher? Well, thank you for the question and for thinking that when I was a researcher, there were such things. I am from the pre-digital era when I was doing research.
These I think these conversations were pretty much restricted to the information information specialist and specialists and librarians, people at the library. They were discussing this, but not. Researchers so. For my time. Let's say we were just as researchers, we would just ask it to publish our papers.
We were not even asked to organize our data, by the way. So this I got into this when I was working at a big publisher, and I was responsible for the journals department. And then we I started to understand that the back stages of producing journal and all these links and all these connections between the information of the information.
So this was a world I entered, I would say, maybe 10 years ago when I started working with it, with research information. And then when I worked at orchid, where I was engaged as the regional director for Latin America, it was very interesting to start the conversation with some of organizations in the region, in my region, Latin America, and.
And start to. Think about a more global view of the research information. But I would say that. As for being a researcher, I am not sure that researchers care a lot about metadata and persistent identifiers and all of this. I think that here in this presentation I had one head that was try to convince researchers to why metadata and persisted into files or everything that is collateral to the or underlying the research information is very important nowadays as well for different purposes, including visibility and citations to your work.
So but in another presentation later on, I kind of say stop asking researchers to care about metadata and beads because unless they are from the research information fields or the information fields or IT technology of information, they will not care. Or either if they are maybe research leaders and they are being required right.
To comply to some policy. But otherwise, I think we should. My last attempts to convince my ex colleagues from research to the importance of beads and the importance of connected information. And all of this. Were not very fruitful. So I don't I don't have a clear. No magic no magic bullet.
There We did have a question in the chat about raids. And I will admit I'm not as familiar with raids as I should be, but I think something about them. Anna sorry. I guess. Yeah these are persistent fires for projects. So these are the new there are lots of persistent fires. And they have different levels of maturity, let's say they also have different types of governance, which is another important, important parameter.
And so there are ORCIDs for researchers. There are raw, for example, for organizations, there are rates for projects and many others. Persistent fires that aim to identify all the. All the components, let's say, like this, of the research ecosystem from people going through organizations from samples, biological samples or facilities where we perform research.
The idea is that the grants also have a persistent fire, so that in the ideal world, all the components that are involved in the research would have persistence and fire that would allow for the discoverability, for the connections, for the interoperability of systems and the exchange of information. Great oh, go ahead. Oh, sorry. I was just going to say, if you don't mind if I jump in, please do.
Listening to Anna talk about all the different types of persistent identifiers. And then also how you're feeling of like, stop trying to make us care so much about like metadata. Like we have other things to care about. I think that it's kind of interesting to think about too, in terms of like getting adequate credit for your work and ensuring that like all of the many things that researchers do actually like, go.
Notice and you know, there's like a record of it because like even thinking about like I think the question that Debbie asked specifically I'm sorry, it might not. Yes, but Debbie asked specifically was what things should arrays attach to this week? And it is funny to think about like for example, you put together a really good presentation or giving us a lot of information about persistent identifiers, and it's great to get credit for that kind of stuff.
And it's just interesting to think about how metadata. And what we decide to attach it to or what we don't attach it to dictates that. And yeah, and how when we think about partnering with researchers, whether like for me as a publisher, but for I think a lot of other people on this call is like a librarian or as like for Heather as a consultant that we really need to make sure that we're communicating that part of it and the credits that we're being good partners since we actually are really engaged in this kind of thing.
And they might not be because they are researchers, because they're interested in something different than information science is often. Yeah Debbie, did you buckle up in I saw you on. Yeah, I do. What I'm really asking is I'm sitting there looking at a journal article and I know where to find the ORCID. It's going to be attached to an author.
OK and I know where to find the credit. It's going to be attached to an author, and I know where to find the Doi. It's going to be attached to the article, possibly to figures and tables, a data site ID to the data site for the article. What is a raid attached to? Is that an article level thing? I know it's the project.
Great I'm not looking at the project. I'm looking at a journal article. Where is a raid of journal article level thing? Is it a where? What do you expect to attach raids to? It's really obvious what to do with an ORCID. You have one? I have one there, people. What's it raw?
What's in disney? It's really obvious. They're institutions. We know what they are. A raid is a project. Well, this isn't a project. This is a book or a journal article. Where is a raid attached? At, for example, typically at the grant submission system.
Or I can see it in a grant that makes good sense, but that implies that it isn't there anymore in the journal article, and I think it probably should be. yeah, probably. Anyway, think. Think about where? Maybe on the article level, but.
I don't know. Think about it. I ask this as part of the jatt secretariat, we have to make holes to stick these identifiers into. We were one of the first adopters. In fact, we had contributor IDs before ORCID came along and they don't have to be ORCIDs. If your publisher has other contributor ids, you can have all the contributor IDs you want.
But we have to think about where to put them. This is information attached to information where. Yeah, I think that for example, typically in the acknowledgments where you cite your funding, your funding organization and you may have the grant number and you may have the project you are attached to. So I could see this as a piece of that information. Sure as part of the funding metadata. That that is a good answer.
That makes very good sense. Thank you. But you see my point, it metadata isn't just floating. It has to attach to things. Thanks and Thanks for clarifying, Debbie. And we now have John who apparently didn't realize that there was a Zoom session following. So welcome, welcome, John. We just we jumped right in and definitely appreciated your session.
So so, John, you know, given that you're at a service provider that works with a whole variety of different organizations that need to kind of be plugged in, you know, how do you when you start to approach a customer given like what their basic needs are on metadata, you know, there's so much possibilities around that and that's changing, you know, with the movement towards more attention to data around, you know, apks and things like that.
You know, what kind of advice can you give to folks to kind of kick off conversations when it could seem to be so overwhelming? It really is overwhelming. And usually the conversation starts with me trying to assess just what kind of research they've done, what is it that they're trying to do with their metadata as they move forward? Because you've got to kind of narrow the focus down.
And it's not unusual. A lot of people don't understand that everyone is kind of struggling with the same ideas. So just paring down what your needs are, what your focus is going to be with the metadata, are you trying to just gather data or are you trying to use it for a particular purpose? And then you can start having broader conversations once you have that idea in place.
And it is overwhelming. And again, the best step is to just take it one step at a time and put it into those little buckets. I'm trying to keep an on the chat. I see the cats are highly active today. In terms of reality. I see a comment there.
I think it's a newer initiative and we'll need to see kind of how it finds its footing. But I do think it's a good idea for folks to kind of look at that and see where that's going. I wanted to ask about the OCP memos and the guidance around that that's coming out and an emphasis on machine readability, which will, of course, require robust metadata.
Ginny, do you find that that's coming up in the conversations that you're having, you know, with publishing partners and boards and the like? Better metadata. More metadata. Yeah I mean, I think so. I have to say, I probably won't be giving an official frontier's answer on this because the folks that I work with, I think are most engaged with metadata on a practical level, tend to work on a different part of the team than me.
But I definitely think that that machine readability aspect and the data part of STP is something that we're talking about more, you know, I think from like a publishing sort of like editorial standpoint, a lot of the conversations that I was seeing happening, not just necessarily at frontiers but just in the greater ether, were really about the public accessibility.
And just like the feasibility of that in general for researchers like how they are going to react to that and how different publishers and societies are going to respond. But then slowly, as we got a little bit more comfortable with the memo, I think by late September you started to see people having these more just like practical conversations, like, OK, so what, how are we like, what are we going to do in terms of like journal policies to put like machine readability into like our requirements?
Like, is that something that we want to do at like a journal policy level or is that something that researchers should be working on when they're getting this relevant funding? So I think that those sorts of things are still being discussed, and I feel like the more that we learn more about what the OSTP memo is really going to mean in practical terms, we're going to start having those conversations more and more.
You know, it was a little bit of a half baked answer, but I hope that's helpful. We're all living in this liminal space between the memo and the guidance coming out on. Is that coming up in your conversations with different organizations? Yeah I think these are having impact, but not as much as in the US.
I think people are aware of what's going on in the US and I think it comes in a moment where we just had the UNESCO guidelines as well, which also have a lot of impact here in my region. So I think this is yeah, this is going to change the landscape. But we don't know yet how and when, because I think that this needs still to be. To start being implemented here in my region, we have several, several different.
Projects that could be similar to that and in different stages. And so I think we are all moving towards this direction, but there's still a lot of work to do. I think that people are still not very clear on what is asked from them. I'm talking about the library. I'm talking about the researchers. When they start hearing about terms they've never heard before.
And it demands and mandates that policies that were not that before. So I think we need a lot of good communication and interaction between the different levels of the society. And and yeah, I think we need more good communication, good information about what's going on.
Yeah we still don't have Margie and heather, which is unfortunate. I had some questions for them. I'd like to bring some of the I see a lot of librarians amongst the attendees today. Oh, Margie, welcome. People snuck in at the last minute on me, so thank you. We really appreciate, especially the musical accompaniment that you and Heather put together for your session.
Kind of the same question that I posed to John a little while ago. You know, if you're talking with that new organization, if access innovations is out talking to the new organization, and they're trying to think about where their priorities should be, you know, what types of conversations do you have with them? And, you know, how do you help them kind sort out where they should place their energy and resources first and foremost?
Well, I think what we have to do is find out what their goal is, what their use case is, trying to figure out where they're headed. Because you can use metadata. And in my case, for specifically subject metadata, although we do have metadata extraction to pull out the full bibliographic citation. But if we don't know what they're doing with it, then it's pretty hard to get an idea of where to go.
Most people are looking for improved search they might want to and also combination or recombination of their data. So that if they are trying to put together a new set of data to help people or research collections. And kind of thing, that that is far different from wanting to be able to search the methods section of research paper to get ideas for new methodologies, or if they're looking to put together conference tracks and sort papers into conference tracks and then personalize it for individual people.
They want to profile the user, they want to profile or the attendee, they want to profile the papers and then try to make a match. So the so the use cases are all over the place and you have to know which one they want in order to really organize it well for them. Yeah I just want to jump back to the librarians in attendance because I know we didn't have a lot of we didn't have we need some librarians to join our planning committee for metadata musical for spe.
But any questions specifically from the library side today? And feel free to unmute your camera on our friends here. This is Vicky Cline from York College of Pennsylvania. I'm not quite sure how to phrase this, but the process that I'm seeing here reminds me very much of what happened with Marc records historically, that when they were developed in the 60s and I ended up in library school in the eighties, and when I learned cataloguing, I discovered that there were a number of incredibly wonderful, machine readable fields, particularly in music metadata, that I thought, oh, this is going to be so awesome that people are going to be able to search by these things.
But the reality was that, you know, 50 years later, None of the systems we have available actually can search and access some of those data fields. So I think probably the discussion around use case and deciding, OK, what are we actually going to build the tools to access the information and be able to organize it and search it, and explore it?
We have to make sure that those are actually going to happen because having machine readable data but no interfaces, I think in some ways we lose the point then. It's a great point. Anyone want to comment on that, margie? I would like to because when we first started with cataloging and the machine readable LC subject headings, it was it was incredible.
It was wonderful. But what happened is, particularly on the subject metadata side, the Lisa headings are so long and complex, they are not what people would put in a search box. And so libraries in general have kind of been left behind on the search and discover aspect if all they have is either full text or the Library of Congress subject headings. A lot of people have mitigated that, like with the J thesaurus using that to index instead of using LCS or using them both and putting them in separate fields so that people can just Zoom into the searchable, searchable versions instead of the complex and inverted and lengthy headings that libraries have used extensively in their opex.
And I think that's part of why people go to Google and do a known title search to get to the items in an opaque. And I think if we were to just change the way that happens, either separate the Lea headings into sections or add more information. And the other thing is that has it isn't necessarily a rule, but it's a custom to limit to about three subject headings. So if you had an article on there was a thesis, for example, the University of Florida on.
The ecology of alligators in the Everglades, and it had three subject headings in the cataloging record. One of them was theses and dissertations, one of them was ecology, and the other was special collections. Well, so the only way you can get to the subject of that particular item is a title search. And I think it's really, really held people back. And the change is very simple.
Just either search the titles full text, or add some subject headings from a thesaurus instead of from. OK, I'll get off my hobbyhorse now. Oh, well, no, that's. I appreciate that perspective, Vicki. Did you want to have a response? Because I see we've got a hand up, but I want to give you an opportunity if you wanted to respond.
I'm going to respond and text with a specific thing, thing that I'm thinking of, but please go ahead and have someone answer. But thank you for your question, Linda. Oop oops. Sorry here we go. Go ahead.
Computer was being overly helpful, suggesting things with pop up boxes. Yeah, I'm actually going to get on my hobbyhorse now is we have a lot of metadata that. Would be more useful if we had more of a role to play in building the systems presented to the users. Right now I'm in the middle of a project for our digital collections to take those subject strings and in fact, break them up so that we can use fast headings instead.
And that is going to solve a lot of our indexing problems that we've had from the beginning of things like geographic access and not being able to pull a consistent geographic term out of the LCS like subject headings without doing extra work. Now it'll become by using fast, which, if you're not familiar, is faceted subject headings that are built based on the Library of Congress subject headings but broken up so that they can work better in a faceted search system.
But I don't have any control over the. The ways that users can search and facet. Their search, their search results. On the public side. So I can provide the metadata, but I can't always give people the AZ tool to use it. Could imagine the frustration there. I mean, one of the questions that I was going to put out more generally is there's a lot of systems that need to interact with each other, to make these user journeys possible.
And how do the systems creators, the vendors prioritize what gets added when there's probably lots of hands going up and saying, hey, you know, we think that this should be involved. And the thing that I could think of. It sounds like a commercial, but I think it's true is to get involved with either the appropriate ISO standard that is either being created or already exists to elevate that request.
Or if there's no ISO working group recommended practice to submit the idea, you know, as part of that or go in with the existing organizations. Does anybody have any suggestions? I'd like to jump in real quick. I'm trying not to put my sales hat on completely, but I will just say, Lynda, as a vendor, a lot of times. We go in there, we ask all the questions we can think of, but there's a reticence from the other side to share information because they think we're just going to use it against them.
And a lot of times we just don't know exactly what it is you're looking for. Regardless of how many questions we ask, we might dance all around it but not be able to hit that nail. And your vendor should be able to work with you to customize what it is that you're presenting, especially from a UI instance. It's there are the capabilities are there. Again, sometimes what you really want aren't quite capable, but you need to kind of explore those and you should at least be having conversations with your vendors as to what's capable and what it is.
So I would just say to you and anyone else that's struggling with this and saying, I can't get what I want. Take a step back and think, what have I been telling my vendor? What have I been? What have we presented to them? To show them exactly what it is that I need and maybe start that conversation over again because it sometimes we stumble on it. Sometimes we know what you're looking for.
Sometimes it takes a lot more information coming from your side so that we can get a better grasp on it because there are capabilities out there that we can use for sure. Yeah, definitely. And I think I mean, part of it is we were not quite realizing what we can do. On a timeline that matches up. So by the time we figure out how to make the metadata work with the system.
You know, we're not in sync. And I think part of that is a whole other hobbyhorse is that the people who get to talk to the vendors are not usually the people with hands on keyboards. That is definitely something I always try to do is get those individuals who are actually working with it involved somehow, because you're absolutely right.
Sometimes you can pass information up the chain of command, but it always doesn't come out the same way. So yeah, I feel for you. I understand. And I'm certainly not trying to back you into a corner. But I did want to present another side for. Yeah Margie, did you jump in? I saw you unmute.
I did. I was I was just starting to type in chat. The we often get straight jacketed when you're faced with a spreadsheet that comes out because there's no flexibility. And if you say, well, sort of they disqualify the app. And so there's no brainstorming on how to work with metadata. And metadata is incredibly flexible. So that's one point.
The other point I wanted to make is that there are some forthcoming standards like the ISO 25, 1964, which is the controlled vocabulary standards. So the metadata standard is up for a rewrite. I am. Likely because I'm running unposted chair that group and I would welcome everybody that I can get because we need a lot of different eyes.
We are really changing, I think, from controlled vocabularies to structured vocabularies. And the differences are immense. And so as we move forward and figuring out how to rewrite this thing, especially part two, there will be a lot of need for a lot of different kinds of input. So if you're willing, you could send me a note individually, I'll put my email in the chat.
And I would very much welcome anybody that wants to join on board, either as a linker, a lurker, just a Watcher, or as an active participant. Yeah Margie, Howard Ratner has put in the chat. Could you just describe the differences? I think you mean between the controlled and the structured. Well, I can a bit. Hello Hi. Sorry, I just had another meeting that was just.
Hello, wonderful colleagues. Yeah, but it was just one of those ones where I. I think we have someone who needs to go on mute. Sorry, I will add that in chat. OK we're all trying to do way too many, too many things. It's a plug for getting involved in ISO and other standards initiatives if you haven't been part of a group, probably preaching to the choir here.
But that's something to definitely take under consideration. I guess another question that I would have, you know, is when I was back as a publisher, which is more than 10 years ago now, I know that we would do a lot. I happen to be with Springer before it became Springer nature, do a lot to talk about the updating of the metadata. But when you once you send it out into the world like Google would strip things out, right?
Because they had this idea that their metadata fields were better than everybody else's metadata fields. And so how do we keep from spinning our wheels, either creating fields that aren't going to get used or inputting information into the metadata that's going to get stripped out. John, do you have thoughts on that? I do.
Yes, I do. We have about 3 minutes, so I'll keep it. I'll keep it brief. So the stripping with Google, that's a big problem. And it's not just Google. Others are doing it as well. And again, working with nice. So to really come up with standards that everyone can get behind is probably the most fundamental way of keeping that from happening.
But other than that, I think keeping the metadata fields to the ones that are more supported across multiple platforms. And here again, it takes a higher level of looking at the way you're using your metadata and which platforms are you going to use it across to understand what those platforms are, what they like to use and don't like to use? And then kind of molding your plan to meet those different avenues, it's not perfect.
You would like to be able to use what you want to use and put it out there, but we know what the problems are and the best way at this time is to kind of mold your path to meet the platforms that you're looking to use your metadata on. We've got only about two minutes left. I just want to loopback to Jenny from the publisher standpoint, what would you say are kind of top metadata concerns right now?
Very good question and one that I probably should have come very prepared to talk about. But well, I think that I don't know if I would qualify this as a top metadata concern. But one thing I've been thinking about a lot is something that we touched on already, which is how can we make sure that the research we publish actually goes somewhere, doesn't just end up sitting on our website or sitting behind a paywall or something and not getting discovered by anyone.
I think we talk about open access a lot. You know, I'm at frontiers, we're an open access publisher, and we often talk about that as being synonymous with discoverability. But there's so much more that goes into discoverability than like whether or not something is open access. So I think as publishers, considering our entire role is to effectively disseminate knowledge. We really need to think about what we're doing with metadata and how we're doing, like John said, like partnering with other parts of the ecosystem that have a role in ensuring that the things we publish like reach other people, like how we're working with those to make sure that data or metadata is used effectively.
And then I think the other part that I've been thinking about a lot recently is how we can think about other alternative research outputs such as data and what we can do as publishers to help researchers make that discoverable as well. Because I think that there are so many things that researchers create that aren't just articles, and it's just important for those of us who care about progressing like the world that those actually reach other people and are used optimally.
So I think as publishers, we're like our whole expertise is in dissemination. It's really important to think about what we're doing with our metadata to facilitate that kind of knowledge sharing. Right on a few last words. We're at time, but I want to give you an opportunity to jump back in if there's anything we missed or what's on your mind.
Alex in my mind is just that. I think that it's a collective effort. I think that we should really organize and coordinate and have clear tasks. Who is responsible for what's in all of this related to metadata in general? And yeah, and I'm not sure I still have to think more about this. Whether researchers should care or not should care about this.
So, Yeah. Well, with that, I'm going to thank our speakers today. And Heather catalyst sends her apology. She's an ksla executive session. So I think that is a good reason to miss. We hope that you enjoyed our little show. If you want to get involved with the metadata of the musical at SSP, reach out. We'll talk your ear off about it.
It's going to be amazing and we hope you enjoy the rest of the sessions today. And Thanks to nice Plus for letting us try this little experiment. Have a great day. Thank you, everyone. Abi thank you. Thank you.
Segment:0 .
Hello Hello. Hey, kindra, how are you doing? All right. How are you this morning? Well, I had some technical difficulties earlier. Couldn't get into the chat, but I made it here, so I'm going to get myself lucky. This is where the magic happens.
Hi, Ana. Hey, Jenny. Let's see, Sean. One you can't see everybody. So want to make sure that we have all our speakers here. John, are you here? And we have Margie and Heather. OK well, hopefully they won't.
Hop in. Sorry, Kendra. Not here yet. Sorry OK, great. So I mentioned I had some technical difficulties. It's great to be here. I couldn't see much of the chat and I couldn't see if there were any questions in the Q&A box.
So I do want to take the opportunity to invite folks to either use the Zoom Q&A, use the Zoom chat, or definitely unmute yourself and ask a question so maybe we can kick off just a. See if there's anyone who had a pent up question. Oh who came up with this idea? Well, it was a collaborative effort.
I will say, if None of you if you haven't been to a nice forum before, I highly recommend it on John and Heather and I met together at the nice forum back in September and it was a wonderful opportunity. There was lots of engagement, there was a great cafe style organizational structure. So you really did get to meet almost everyone at the event and the focus was brainstorming on what kinds of topics could come up for an Plus.
And we had amazing conversations about how to represent names and language, how to represent licenses, and it was wonderful, great stuff. I was so serious at the end of the day. So I grabbed a piece of paper and as a joke, wrote metadata, the musical with some fake songs and had a laugh. And then afterwards on and Heather and John came up and said, hey, if you want to work on this, you know, we'd be happy to do that.
So we zigged a little bit to metadata greatest hits because it's a Preview. We are going to do metadata the musical at esp in Portland. So if you're going to be at esp and if you'd like a role in a musical, please do reach out to us. So we zigged to metadata greatest hits and came up with the music theme. And as you can see from the presentations, everybody just ran with it.
So it was an amazing team effort and Jenny came along and was willing to take a chance on us being a little bit wacky. So we definitely appreciated that. Worth noting that Heather had far more fantastic songs put together than I think that we saw today. Heather had so many great punny metadata songs, so if you ever need your day to be a little bit brightened and you want to see some metadata hits to songs, you know, Heather can absolutely help you.
I will say we failed on one bit. She hoped that we could have the Bengals song the eternal flame, playing in the background when she told the story about pet palooza. So I did jot down some lyrics as to how the eternal flame could be rewritten. I don't know if anybody wants to hear it or not. Maybe too much.
Heather singing. All righty. Yeah people are saying they're recovering from rolling over the floor, so I'm happy they had fun. Yeah so I don't know if we have John or Margie Ortiz Heather yet, but I have some questions that we can kick off with on and Ginny and if John maybe candor, you can help me keep an on the attendees if they're able to join.
So so Ginny, just to start from your perspective, I loved the way you kind of processed how you were interacting with your coworker and thinking about from a, from a research standpoint, how, you know, the importance of metadata, the importance of pids and those kinds of things. If you had to give some advice to others who are here on how they might broach the subject with their more junior colleagues or with authors or editorial board members who might just intersect with one part of the scholarly communications ecosystem.
What kind of advice could you give? Now sure. So I'm going to apologize in advance for how generic I think this advice is. But I really think that it's good advice. You know, my dad always says that you should give people the Reader's Digest version and just tell them the thing that they personally need to know. So I think it's just important that when we're communicating about anything that can seem idiosyncratic, like metadata or one of the myriad other things that we do in scholarly communication that I think if you try to tell your friends and family you work in, they don't know what you're talking about.
But it's just important to think about the person you're talking to and what they care about and what they're probably doing before and after they talk to you. And then to tailor what you're saying to their needs. So that they actually are keyed in to listen to it. Because, you know, even like a lot of the people we work with are like really smart, thoughtful people who want to pay attention to what you're saying.
But for example, right now, all of us are in the midst of like a virtual meeting. And I know many of us probably have actual work meetings later today that they're going to do while they're doing this. So it's just important to make sure that you're leading with the thing that the person will actually listen to and that you're sort of aligning on your values at the beginning of a conversation.
So, for example, when you're talking about fair, I think sometimes when you just talk about trying to have fair data, and I use this example when I was talking, but people just sort of start to zone out because it seems sort of boring, but actually like if you care about research, it's not boring at all. It really is what enables us to use findings beyond just one person's research project, you know, and that's incredible.
So I think that leading with that leading with the fact that you'd like to help people in your institution make their data. So that other people can use it and so that it goes beyond the confines of their lab. Like that's much more exciting than saying that you're going to talk to them about the FAIR principles. So I think it's just framing conversations in a way that pique interest.
Mm-hmm Really interesting to hear you talk about reaching people where they are. I do. As part of my role at delta, think communications with a lot of editorial boards, like if people say, can you come on. And can you give us some high level findings of what's going on in space? And sometimes they will ask me to kind of stay in a workshop type environment and listen to what's going on.
And I participated in one maybe almost a year ago now, and one of the other items on the agenda was whether the publisher should require ORCIDs for corresponding authors. And so the proposal was sort of lobbed out. There was a silence, as you can imagine. And then one person on the editorial board said, oh, I hate when I have to look up my ORCID. I have to do that every time.
And then there was some murmuring, and then that was the end of the conversation and it was decided not to require ORCIDs. Now, I think the way, that should have gone, given that this was a society who was published by a larger publisher as some of the benefits that ORCID could bring should have been introduced before the conversation, so that that like kind of led balloon that was dropped on I hate to look at my ORCID wasn't the loudest voice in the room so may want to think about that also.
So on AI know you spent some time at ORCID. Can you tell us how you first got interested in metadata and identifiers even back when you're a researcher? Well, thank you for the question and for thinking that when I was a researcher, there were such things. I am from the pre-digital era when I was doing research.
These I think these conversations were pretty much restricted to the information information specialist and specialists and librarians, people at the library. They were discussing this, but not. Researchers so. For my time. Let's say we were just as researchers, we would just ask it to publish our papers.
We were not even asked to organize our data, by the way. So this I got into this when I was working at a big publisher, and I was responsible for the journals department. And then we I started to understand that the back stages of producing journal and all these links and all these connections between the information of the information.
So this was a world I entered, I would say, maybe 10 years ago when I started working with it, with research information. And then when I worked at orchid, where I was engaged as the regional director for Latin America, it was very interesting to start the conversation with some of organizations in the region, in my region, Latin America, and.
And start to. Think about a more global view of the research information. But I would say that. As for being a researcher, I am not sure that researchers care a lot about metadata and persistent identifiers and all of this. I think that here in this presentation I had one head that was try to convince researchers to why metadata and persisted into files or everything that is collateral to the or underlying the research information is very important nowadays as well for different purposes, including visibility and citations to your work.
So but in another presentation later on, I kind of say stop asking researchers to care about metadata and beads because unless they are from the research information fields or the information fields or IT technology of information, they will not care. Or either if they are maybe research leaders and they are being required right.
To comply to some policy. But otherwise, I think we should. My last attempts to convince my ex colleagues from research to the importance of beads and the importance of connected information. And all of this. Were not very fruitful. So I don't I don't have a clear. No magic no magic bullet.
There We did have a question in the chat about raids. And I will admit I'm not as familiar with raids as I should be, but I think something about them. Anna sorry. I guess. Yeah these are persistent fires for projects. So these are the new there are lots of persistent fires. And they have different levels of maturity, let's say they also have different types of governance, which is another important, important parameter.
And so there are ORCIDs for researchers. There are raw, for example, for organizations, there are rates for projects and many others. Persistent fires that aim to identify all the. All the components, let's say, like this, of the research ecosystem from people going through organizations from samples, biological samples or facilities where we perform research.
The idea is that the grants also have a persistent fire, so that in the ideal world, all the components that are involved in the research would have persistence and fire that would allow for the discoverability, for the connections, for the interoperability of systems and the exchange of information. Great oh, go ahead. Oh, sorry. I was just going to say, if you don't mind if I jump in, please do.
Listening to Anna talk about all the different types of persistent identifiers. And then also how you're feeling of like, stop trying to make us care so much about like metadata. Like we have other things to care about. I think that it's kind of interesting to think about too, in terms of like getting adequate credit for your work and ensuring that like all of the many things that researchers do actually like, go.
Notice and you know, there's like a record of it because like even thinking about like I think the question that Debbie asked specifically I'm sorry, it might not. Yes, but Debbie asked specifically was what things should arrays attach to this week? And it is funny to think about like for example, you put together a really good presentation or giving us a lot of information about persistent identifiers, and it's great to get credit for that kind of stuff.
And it's just interesting to think about how metadata. And what we decide to attach it to or what we don't attach it to dictates that. And yeah, and how when we think about partnering with researchers, whether like for me as a publisher, but for I think a lot of other people on this call is like a librarian or as like for Heather as a consultant that we really need to make sure that we're communicating that part of it and the credits that we're being good partners since we actually are really engaged in this kind of thing.
And they might not be because they are researchers, because they're interested in something different than information science is often. Yeah Debbie, did you buckle up in I saw you on. Yeah, I do. What I'm really asking is I'm sitting there looking at a journal article and I know where to find the ORCID. It's going to be attached to an author.
OK and I know where to find the credit. It's going to be attached to an author, and I know where to find the Doi. It's going to be attached to the article, possibly to figures and tables, a data site ID to the data site for the article. What is a raid attached to? Is that an article level thing? I know it's the project.
Great I'm not looking at the project. I'm looking at a journal article. Where is a raid of journal article level thing? Is it a where? What do you expect to attach raids to? It's really obvious what to do with an ORCID. You have one? I have one there, people. What's it raw?
What's in disney? It's really obvious. They're institutions. We know what they are. A raid is a project. Well, this isn't a project. This is a book or a journal article. Where is a raid attached? At, for example, typically at the grant submission system.
Or I can see it in a grant that makes good sense, but that implies that it isn't there anymore in the journal article, and I think it probably should be. yeah, probably. Anyway, think. Think about where? Maybe on the article level, but.
I don't know. Think about it. I ask this as part of the jatt secretariat, we have to make holes to stick these identifiers into. We were one of the first adopters. In fact, we had contributor IDs before ORCID came along and they don't have to be ORCIDs. If your publisher has other contributor ids, you can have all the contributor IDs you want.
But we have to think about where to put them. This is information attached to information where. Yeah, I think that for example, typically in the acknowledgments where you cite your funding, your funding organization and you may have the grant number and you may have the project you are attached to. So I could see this as a piece of that information. Sure as part of the funding metadata. That that is a good answer.
That makes very good sense. Thank you. But you see my point, it metadata isn't just floating. It has to attach to things. Thanks and Thanks for clarifying, Debbie. And we now have John who apparently didn't realize that there was a Zoom session following. So welcome, welcome, John. We just we jumped right in and definitely appreciated your session.
So so, John, you know, given that you're at a service provider that works with a whole variety of different organizations that need to kind of be plugged in, you know, how do you when you start to approach a customer given like what their basic needs are on metadata, you know, there's so much possibilities around that and that's changing, you know, with the movement towards more attention to data around, you know, apks and things like that.
You know, what kind of advice can you give to folks to kind of kick off conversations when it could seem to be so overwhelming? It really is overwhelming. And usually the conversation starts with me trying to assess just what kind of research they've done, what is it that they're trying to do with their metadata as they move forward? Because you've got to kind of narrow the focus down.
And it's not unusual. A lot of people don't understand that everyone is kind of struggling with the same ideas. So just paring down what your needs are, what your focus is going to be with the metadata, are you trying to just gather data or are you trying to use it for a particular purpose? And then you can start having broader conversations once you have that idea in place.
And it is overwhelming. And again, the best step is to just take it one step at a time and put it into those little buckets. I'm trying to keep an on the chat. I see the cats are highly active today. In terms of reality. I see a comment there.
I think it's a newer initiative and we'll need to see kind of how it finds its footing. But I do think it's a good idea for folks to kind of look at that and see where that's going. I wanted to ask about the OCP memos and the guidance around that that's coming out and an emphasis on machine readability, which will, of course, require robust metadata.
Ginny, do you find that that's coming up in the conversations that you're having, you know, with publishing partners and boards and the like? Better metadata. More metadata. Yeah I mean, I think so. I have to say, I probably won't be giving an official frontier's answer on this because the folks that I work with, I think are most engaged with metadata on a practical level, tend to work on a different part of the team than me.
But I definitely think that that machine readability aspect and the data part of STP is something that we're talking about more, you know, I think from like a publishing sort of like editorial standpoint, a lot of the conversations that I was seeing happening, not just necessarily at frontiers but just in the greater ether, were really about the public accessibility.
And just like the feasibility of that in general for researchers like how they are going to react to that and how different publishers and societies are going to respond. But then slowly, as we got a little bit more comfortable with the memo, I think by late September you started to see people having these more just like practical conversations, like, OK, so what, how are we like, what are we going to do in terms of like journal policies to put like machine readability into like our requirements?
Like, is that something that we want to do at like a journal policy level or is that something that researchers should be working on when they're getting this relevant funding? So I think that those sorts of things are still being discussed, and I feel like the more that we learn more about what the OSTP memo is really going to mean in practical terms, we're going to start having those conversations more and more.
You know, it was a little bit of a half baked answer, but I hope that's helpful. We're all living in this liminal space between the memo and the guidance coming out on. Is that coming up in your conversations with different organizations? Yeah I think these are having impact, but not as much as in the US.
I think people are aware of what's going on in the US and I think it comes in a moment where we just had the UNESCO guidelines as well, which also have a lot of impact here in my region. So I think this is yeah, this is going to change the landscape. But we don't know yet how and when, because I think that this needs still to be. To start being implemented here in my region, we have several, several different.
Projects that could be similar to that and in different stages. And so I think we are all moving towards this direction, but there's still a lot of work to do. I think that people are still not very clear on what is asked from them. I'm talking about the library. I'm talking about the researchers. When they start hearing about terms they've never heard before.
And it demands and mandates that policies that were not that before. So I think we need a lot of good communication and interaction between the different levels of the society. And and yeah, I think we need more good communication, good information about what's going on.
Yeah we still don't have Margie and heather, which is unfortunate. I had some questions for them. I'd like to bring some of the I see a lot of librarians amongst the attendees today. Oh, Margie, welcome. People snuck in at the last minute on me, so thank you. We really appreciate, especially the musical accompaniment that you and Heather put together for your session.
Kind of the same question that I posed to John a little while ago. You know, if you're talking with that new organization, if access innovations is out talking to the new organization, and they're trying to think about where their priorities should be, you know, what types of conversations do you have with them? And, you know, how do you help them kind sort out where they should place their energy and resources first and foremost?
Well, I think what we have to do is find out what their goal is, what their use case is, trying to figure out where they're headed. Because you can use metadata. And in my case, for specifically subject metadata, although we do have metadata extraction to pull out the full bibliographic citation. But if we don't know what they're doing with it, then it's pretty hard to get an idea of where to go.
Most people are looking for improved search they might want to and also combination or recombination of their data. So that if they are trying to put together a new set of data to help people or research collections. And kind of thing, that that is far different from wanting to be able to search the methods section of research paper to get ideas for new methodologies, or if they're looking to put together conference tracks and sort papers into conference tracks and then personalize it for individual people.
They want to profile the user, they want to profile or the attendee, they want to profile the papers and then try to make a match. So the so the use cases are all over the place and you have to know which one they want in order to really organize it well for them. Yeah I just want to jump back to the librarians in attendance because I know we didn't have a lot of we didn't have we need some librarians to join our planning committee for metadata musical for spe.
But any questions specifically from the library side today? And feel free to unmute your camera on our friends here. This is Vicky Cline from York College of Pennsylvania. I'm not quite sure how to phrase this, but the process that I'm seeing here reminds me very much of what happened with Marc records historically, that when they were developed in the 60s and I ended up in library school in the eighties, and when I learned cataloguing, I discovered that there were a number of incredibly wonderful, machine readable fields, particularly in music metadata, that I thought, oh, this is going to be so awesome that people are going to be able to search by these things.
But the reality was that, you know, 50 years later, None of the systems we have available actually can search and access some of those data fields. So I think probably the discussion around use case and deciding, OK, what are we actually going to build the tools to access the information and be able to organize it and search it, and explore it?
We have to make sure that those are actually going to happen because having machine readable data but no interfaces, I think in some ways we lose the point then. It's a great point. Anyone want to comment on that, margie? I would like to because when we first started with cataloging and the machine readable LC subject headings, it was it was incredible.
It was wonderful. But what happened is, particularly on the subject metadata side, the Lisa headings are so long and complex, they are not what people would put in a search box. And so libraries in general have kind of been left behind on the search and discover aspect if all they have is either full text or the Library of Congress subject headings. A lot of people have mitigated that, like with the J thesaurus using that to index instead of using LCS or using them both and putting them in separate fields so that people can just Zoom into the searchable, searchable versions instead of the complex and inverted and lengthy headings that libraries have used extensively in their opex.
And I think that's part of why people go to Google and do a known title search to get to the items in an opaque. And I think if we were to just change the way that happens, either separate the Lea headings into sections or add more information. And the other thing is that has it isn't necessarily a rule, but it's a custom to limit to about three subject headings. So if you had an article on there was a thesis, for example, the University of Florida on.
The ecology of alligators in the Everglades, and it had three subject headings in the cataloging record. One of them was theses and dissertations, one of them was ecology, and the other was special collections. Well, so the only way you can get to the subject of that particular item is a title search. And I think it's really, really held people back. And the change is very simple.
Just either search the titles full text, or add some subject headings from a thesaurus instead of from. OK, I'll get off my hobbyhorse now. Oh, well, no, that's. I appreciate that perspective, Vicki. Did you want to have a response? Because I see we've got a hand up, but I want to give you an opportunity if you wanted to respond.
I'm going to respond and text with a specific thing, thing that I'm thinking of, but please go ahead and have someone answer. But thank you for your question, Linda. Oop oops. Sorry here we go. Go ahead.
Computer was being overly helpful, suggesting things with pop up boxes. Yeah, I'm actually going to get on my hobbyhorse now is we have a lot of metadata that. Would be more useful if we had more of a role to play in building the systems presented to the users. Right now I'm in the middle of a project for our digital collections to take those subject strings and in fact, break them up so that we can use fast headings instead.
And that is going to solve a lot of our indexing problems that we've had from the beginning of things like geographic access and not being able to pull a consistent geographic term out of the LCS like subject headings without doing extra work. Now it'll become by using fast, which, if you're not familiar, is faceted subject headings that are built based on the Library of Congress subject headings but broken up so that they can work better in a faceted search system.
But I don't have any control over the. The ways that users can search and facet. Their search, their search results. On the public side. So I can provide the metadata, but I can't always give people the AZ tool to use it. Could imagine the frustration there. I mean, one of the questions that I was going to put out more generally is there's a lot of systems that need to interact with each other, to make these user journeys possible.
And how do the systems creators, the vendors prioritize what gets added when there's probably lots of hands going up and saying, hey, you know, we think that this should be involved. And the thing that I could think of. It sounds like a commercial, but I think it's true is to get involved with either the appropriate ISO standard that is either being created or already exists to elevate that request.
Or if there's no ISO working group recommended practice to submit the idea, you know, as part of that or go in with the existing organizations. Does anybody have any suggestions? I'd like to jump in real quick. I'm trying not to put my sales hat on completely, but I will just say, Lynda, as a vendor, a lot of times. We go in there, we ask all the questions we can think of, but there's a reticence from the other side to share information because they think we're just going to use it against them.
And a lot of times we just don't know exactly what it is you're looking for. Regardless of how many questions we ask, we might dance all around it but not be able to hit that nail. And your vendor should be able to work with you to customize what it is that you're presenting, especially from a UI instance. It's there are the capabilities are there. Again, sometimes what you really want aren't quite capable, but you need to kind of explore those and you should at least be having conversations with your vendors as to what's capable and what it is.
So I would just say to you and anyone else that's struggling with this and saying, I can't get what I want. Take a step back and think, what have I been telling my vendor? What have I been? What have we presented to them? To show them exactly what it is that I need and maybe start that conversation over again because it sometimes we stumble on it. Sometimes we know what you're looking for.
Sometimes it takes a lot more information coming from your side so that we can get a better grasp on it because there are capabilities out there that we can use for sure. Yeah, definitely. And I think I mean, part of it is we were not quite realizing what we can do. On a timeline that matches up. So by the time we figure out how to make the metadata work with the system.
You know, we're not in sync. And I think part of that is a whole other hobbyhorse is that the people who get to talk to the vendors are not usually the people with hands on keyboards. That is definitely something I always try to do is get those individuals who are actually working with it involved somehow, because you're absolutely right.
Sometimes you can pass information up the chain of command, but it always doesn't come out the same way. So yeah, I feel for you. I understand. And I'm certainly not trying to back you into a corner. But I did want to present another side for. Yeah Margie, did you jump in? I saw you unmute.
I did. I was I was just starting to type in chat. The we often get straight jacketed when you're faced with a spreadsheet that comes out because there's no flexibility. And if you say, well, sort of they disqualify the app. And so there's no brainstorming on how to work with metadata. And metadata is incredibly flexible. So that's one point.
The other point I wanted to make is that there are some forthcoming standards like the ISO 25, 1964, which is the controlled vocabulary standards. So the metadata standard is up for a rewrite. I am. Likely because I'm running unposted chair that group and I would welcome everybody that I can get because we need a lot of different eyes.
We are really changing, I think, from controlled vocabularies to structured vocabularies. And the differences are immense. And so as we move forward and figuring out how to rewrite this thing, especially part two, there will be a lot of need for a lot of different kinds of input. So if you're willing, you could send me a note individually, I'll put my email in the chat.
And I would very much welcome anybody that wants to join on board, either as a linker, a lurker, just a Watcher, or as an active participant. Yeah Margie, Howard Ratner has put in the chat. Could you just describe the differences? I think you mean between the controlled and the structured. Well, I can a bit. Hello Hi. Sorry, I just had another meeting that was just.
Hello, wonderful colleagues. Yeah, but it was just one of those ones where I. I think we have someone who needs to go on mute. Sorry, I will add that in chat. OK we're all trying to do way too many, too many things. It's a plug for getting involved in ISO and other standards initiatives if you haven't been part of a group, probably preaching to the choir here.
But that's something to definitely take under consideration. I guess another question that I would have, you know, is when I was back as a publisher, which is more than 10 years ago now, I know that we would do a lot. I happen to be with Springer before it became Springer nature, do a lot to talk about the updating of the metadata. But when you once you send it out into the world like Google would strip things out, right?
Because they had this idea that their metadata fields were better than everybody else's metadata fields. And so how do we keep from spinning our wheels, either creating fields that aren't going to get used or inputting information into the metadata that's going to get stripped out. John, do you have thoughts on that? I do.
Yes, I do. We have about 3 minutes, so I'll keep it. I'll keep it brief. So the stripping with Google, that's a big problem. And it's not just Google. Others are doing it as well. And again, working with nice. So to really come up with standards that everyone can get behind is probably the most fundamental way of keeping that from happening.
But other than that, I think keeping the metadata fields to the ones that are more supported across multiple platforms. And here again, it takes a higher level of looking at the way you're using your metadata and which platforms are you going to use it across to understand what those platforms are, what they like to use and don't like to use? And then kind of molding your plan to meet those different avenues, it's not perfect.
You would like to be able to use what you want to use and put it out there, but we know what the problems are and the best way at this time is to kind of mold your path to meet the platforms that you're looking to use your metadata on. We've got only about two minutes left. I just want to loopback to Jenny from the publisher standpoint, what would you say are kind of top metadata concerns right now?
Very good question and one that I probably should have come very prepared to talk about. But well, I think that I don't know if I would qualify this as a top metadata concern. But one thing I've been thinking about a lot is something that we touched on already, which is how can we make sure that the research we publish actually goes somewhere, doesn't just end up sitting on our website or sitting behind a paywall or something and not getting discovered by anyone.
I think we talk about open access a lot. You know, I'm at frontiers, we're an open access publisher, and we often talk about that as being synonymous with discoverability. But there's so much more that goes into discoverability than like whether or not something is open access. So I think as publishers, considering our entire role is to effectively disseminate knowledge. We really need to think about what we're doing with metadata and how we're doing, like John said, like partnering with other parts of the ecosystem that have a role in ensuring that the things we publish like reach other people, like how we're working with those to make sure that data or metadata is used effectively.
And then I think the other part that I've been thinking about a lot recently is how we can think about other alternative research outputs such as data and what we can do as publishers to help researchers make that discoverable as well. Because I think that there are so many things that researchers create that aren't just articles, and it's just important for those of us who care about progressing like the world that those actually reach other people and are used optimally.
So I think as publishers, we're like our whole expertise is in dissemination. It's really important to think about what we're doing with our metadata to facilitate that kind of knowledge sharing. Right on a few last words. We're at time, but I want to give you an opportunity to jump back in if there's anything we missed or what's on your mind.
Alex in my mind is just that. I think that it's a collective effort. I think that we should really organize and coordinate and have clear tasks. Who is responsible for what's in all of this related to metadata in general? And yeah, and I'm not sure I still have to think more about this. Whether researchers should care or not should care about this.
So, Yeah. Well, with that, I'm going to thank our speakers today. And Heather catalyst sends her apology. She's an ksla executive session. So I think that is a good reason to miss. We hope that you enjoyed our little show. If you want to get involved with the metadata of the musical at SSP, reach out. We'll talk your ear off about it.
It's going to be amazing and we hope you enjoy the rest of the sessions today. And Thanks to nice Plus for letting us try this little experiment. Have a great day. Thank you, everyone. Abi thank you. Thank you.
Form Title Download
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode