Figure 3 - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
This paper reports on a demonstration of YAMZ (Yet Another Metadata Zoo) as a mechanism for building community consensus around metadata terms. The demonstration is motivated by the complexity of the metadata standards environment and the need for more user-friendly approaches for researchers to achieve vocabulary consensus. The paper reviews a ser...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... ranking of a term can help community members cohere around terminology and definitions that can form the basis of a metadata standard. The YAMZ general consensus-building workflow follows four high-level sequential steps presented in Figure 3: 1) First, collaborators contribute entries by direct entry into an HTML form, or by uploading a structured document (e.g., CSV file, or tab delimited file); 2) Second, each new term is tagged by the community collaborators and receives an ARK identifier. The ARK is assigned whether or not the term contributed becomes the term endorsed by community consensus; 3) Third users (e.g. in a lab) will see each other's terms and have the opportunity to comment and vote on the definitions of the terms they favor (terms can evolve through iterative rounds of user feedback and contributor edits); 4) The final step is determining the preferred term. ...
Citations
... Metadata are an indispensable component of any research data repository's definition, purpose, and function because it is the basis of the practical creation and maintenance of metadata standards that enable the management of research data [22,23]. If metadata records are formatted to a common standard, they can facilitate the readability of the metadata by both humans and machines and machine to machine [24,25]. Thus, to make research data publicly accessible and reusable, researchers need to deposit their raw data and datasets into repositories and provide metadata records that conform to the repository's metadata schema [9,[26][27][28][29]. ...
... Most of HEIs lack detailed metadata standards and technical skills as well as required resources [25,45]. Furthermore, many digital initiatives lack adequate skills and resources [49]. ...
... Furthermore, many digital initiatives lack adequate skills and resources [49]. Repositories development is a labour-intensive process, which needs knowledge and awareness among team members [18,25,45]. ...
This systematic review synthesised existing research papers that explore the available metadata standards to enable researchers to preserve, discover, and reuse research data in repositories. This review provides a broad overview of certain aspects that must be taken into consideration when creating and assessing metadata standards to enhance research data preservation discoverability and reusability strategies. Research papers on metadata standards, research data preservation, discovery and reuse, and repositories published between January 2003 and April 2023 were reviewed from a total of five databases. The review retrieved 1597 papers, and 13 papers were selected in this review. We revealed 13 research articles that explained the creation and application of metadata standards to enhance preservation, discovery, and reuse of research data in repositories. Among them, eight presented the three main types of metadata, descriptive, structural, and administrative, to enable the preservation of research data in data repositories. We noted limited evidence on how these metadata standards can be used to enhance the discovery and reuse of research data in repositories to enable the preservation, discovery, and reuse of research data in repositories. No reviews indicated specific higher education institutions employing metadata standards for the research data created by their researchers. Repository designs and a lack of expertise and technology know-how were among the challenges identified from the reviewed papers. The review has the potential to influence professional practice and decision-making by stakeholders, including researchers, students, librarians, information communication technologists, data managers, private and public organisations, intermediaries, research institutions, and non-profit organizations.
