Melisa Martinez LIS 882 Spring 2013 Metadata Schema Report Darwin Core Darwin Core is a set of metadata

terms developed in 1999 and issued in February of 2009 by the Darwin Core Task Group of the Taxonomic Databases Working Group. Since its development, there have been numerous modifications and improvements to the schema such as the addition of terms and controlled vocabulary. Some of prominent contributors of the schema are John Wieczorek (MVZ), Markus Doring (GBIF), Renato De Giovanni (CRIA), Tim Robertson (GBIF), and Dave Vieglasic (KUNHM) (Biodiversity Information Standards TDWG, 2011b). Darwin Core was developed by the Z39.50 Biology Implementors Group (ZBIG) and promoted by the Species Analyst, a project from the University of Kansas Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center (Priscilla, 2003, p. 142). At the first meeting, Allen Alison adopted the name Darwin Core (Bloom, Blum, Doring, Giovanni, Guralnick, Robertson, Vieglais, & Wieczorek, 2012, p. 4). Although Darwin Core was just recently issued, the idea behind its development has early beginnings and rests on the earlier work of academic societies that addressed how to document or catalog specimens in natural history collections (Bloom et al., 2012, p. 4). At first, the exchange of data was seen as a feature that could be developed in the near future. It was initially intended to guidelines on how to catalog specimens and provide a complete representation of data on specimens (Bloom et al., 2012, p. 4). The main purpose behind the initiative was to create a simple standard and a common framework for the sharing of biodiversity information. There are nine categories of terms: six categories cover a variety of aspects of biodiversity and the three remaining categories cover relationships to other resources, measurements, and generic information about records (Bloom et al., 2012, p. 2). The terms are encoded in RDF, but can be encoded in other encoding schemas such as XML and JavaScript Object Notation. In Darwin Core, there are two options of the schema that can be used with different technologies: Simple Darwin Core and Darwin Core Archives.

The importance of Darwin Core to the biodiversity community, particularly within natural history collections, was to create a common ground metadata schema that was simple and was able to facilitate the exchange of information about the geographic and temporal occurrence of organisms in the natural world and the physical existence of specimens in biological collections (Bloom et al., 2012, p. 4). The intent of Darwin Core was not to create a schema that managed information, but help organize the exchange of information. Another aspect behind the development of the schema was to create something that could be adaptable to future changes and could be used within future technologies (Bloom et al., 2012, p. 4). Accordingly, the idea behind Darwin Core was to include commonly recorded information and to include information as requested in a simple way (Blum & Urrizola, 2002, p. 116).

Unlike other schemas, Darwin Core is similar to Dublin Core. Looking closely at the schema, there are clear similarities between Darwin Core and Dublin Core (DCMI) given that Darwin Core (DCMI) inspired the developers of Darwin Core because of its success. Although

Martinez/p. 2
Darwin Core is very similar to Dublin Core, the main goal of the schema is to provide simple standards to facilitate the finding, sharing and management of biodiversity information (Bloom et al., 2012, p. 3). Meaning to provide a way to facilitate information for the community of biodiversity specifically. In version 2 of Darwin Core, there are forty eight elements. One set of elements identify the precise location of the specimen, including its catalog number and codes within the museum or institution. The user can do ument information on the scientific name of species, hierarchy from within a kingdom to subspecies, creator name of a scientific name, and the name giver of a species and additional taxonomy information is used. Other elements within Darwin Core identify the date and time of collection, geographic information, collector, and relationships with other items within the collection (Blum & Urrizola, 2002, p. 142). One specific way use Darwin Core is the Simple Darwin Core that provides basic information on a specific organism. It can be encoded in XML or as text and terms are within seven categories. Those categories include Record-level Terms, Occurrence, Event, Location, Identification, Taxon, and Geological Context. Further complex information can be added within the ResourceRelationship and MeasurementOrFact categories (Bloom et al., 2012, p. 3). Within the seven categories of Simple Darwin Core, there are a variety of terms that include the following list: Record-level Terms dcterms:type | dcterms:modified | dcterms:language | dcterms:rights | dcterms:rightsHolder | dcterms:accessRights | dcterms:bibliographicCitation | dcterms:references institutionID | collectionID | datasetID | institutionCode | collectionCode | datasetName | ownerInstitutionCode | basisOfRecord | informationWithheld | dataGeneralizations | dynamicProperties Occurrence occurrenceID | catalogNumber | occurrenceRemarks | recordNumber | recordedBy | individualID | individualCount | sex | lifeStage | reproductiveCondition | behavior | establishmentMeans | occurrenceStatus | preparations | disposition | otherCatalogNumbers | previousIdentifications | associatedMedia | associatedReferences | associatedOccurrences | associatedSequences | associatedTaxa Event eventID | samplingProtocol | samplingEffort | eventDate | eventTime | startDayOfYear | endDayOfYear | year | month | day | verbatimEventDate | habitat | fieldNumber | fieldNotes | eventRemarks dcterms:Location locationID | higherGeographyID | higherGeography | continent | waterBody | islandGroup | island | country | countryCode | stateProvince | county | municipality | locality | verbatimLocality | verbatimElevation | minimumElevationInMeters | maximumElevationInMeters | verbatimDepth | minimumDepthInMeters | maximumDepthInMeters | minimumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters | maximumDistanceAboveSurfaceInMeters | locationAccordingTo | locationRemarks | verbatimCoordinates | verbatimLatitude | verbatimLongitude | verbatimCoordinateSystem | verbatimSRS | decimalLatitude | decimalLongitude | geodeticDatum |

coordinateUncertaintyInMeters | coordinatePrecision | pointRadiusSpatialFit | footprintWKT | footprintSRS | footprintSpatialFit | georeferencedBy | georeferencedDate | georeferenceProtocol | georeferenceSources | georeferenceVerificationStatus | georeferenceRemarks GeologicalContext geologicalContextID | earliestEonOrLowestEonothem | latestEonOrHighestEonothem | earliestEraOrLowestErathem | latestEraOrHighestErathem | earliestPeriodOrLowestSystem | latestPeriodOrHighestSystem | earliestEpochOrLowestSeries | latestEpochOrHighestSeries | earliestAgeOrLowestStage | latestAgeOrHighestStage | lowestBiostratigraphicZone | highestBiostratigraphicZone | lithostratigraphicTerms | group | formation | member | bed Identification identificationID | identifiedBy | dateIdentified | identificationReferences | identificationVerificationStatus | identificationRemarks | identificationQualifier | typeStatus Taxon taxonID | scientificNameID | acceptedNameUsageID | parentNameUsageID | originalNameUsageID | nameAccordingToID | namePublishedInID | taxonConceptID | scientificName | acceptedNameUsage | parentNameUsage | originalNameUsage | nameAccordingTo | namePublishedIn | namePublishedInYear | higherClassification | kingdom | phylum | class | order | family | genus | subgenus | specificEpithet | infraspecificEpithet | taxonRank | verbatimTaxonRank | scientificNameAuthorship | vernacularName | nomenclaturalCode | taxonomicStatus | nomenclaturalStatus | taxonRemarks (Biodiversity Information Standards TDWG, 2011c). In addition to these terms, there are certain rules that guide the use of Simple Darwin Core and they include the following: 1. Any Darwin Core term name can be used as a field name. 2. No field name may be repeated in a record. 3. Do not use a Class (Occurrence, Event, Location, GeologicalContext, Identification, Taxon) as a field. 4. Provide data in as many fields as you can. 5. Use the dcterms:type field to say what Dublin Core type (PhysicalObject, StillImage, MovingImage, Sound) the record represents, if possible. 6. Use the basisOfRecord field to say what Darwin Core type (PreservedSpecimen, FossilSpecimen, LivingSpecimen, HumanObservation, MachineObservation, NomenclaturalChecklist, Taxon, Occurrence, Location, Event) the record represents. 7. Populate fields with data that match the definition of the field. 8. Use the controlled vocabulary for the values of fields that recommend them. 9. If data are withheld, use informationWithheld to say so. 10. If data are shared in lower quality than the original, use dataGeneralizations to say so (Biodiversity Information Standards TDWG, 2009). A second specific way Darwin Core can be used is through the Darwin Core Archives (DwC-A). Unlike the Simple Darwin Core, the purpose behind the archive is to logically arrange in a starlike manner, with one core data file surrounded by any number of extensions. The archive allows for a number of files to be connected to a single record and allows for data files in the

Martinez/p. 4
core to support occurrence and species biodiversity data (Global Biodiversity Information Facility, n.d.).

An example of a Simple Darwin Core record is the following record in XML for a single specimen. <?xml version="1.0"?> <dwr:SimpleDarwinRecordSet xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/xsd/simpledarwincore/ http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/xsd/tdwg_dwc_simple.xsd" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:dwc="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/" xmlns:dwr="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/xsd/simpledarwincore/"> <dwr:SimpleDarwinRecord> <dcterms:type>PhysicalObject</dcterms:type> <dcterms:modified>2009-02-12T12:43:31</dcterms:modified> <dcterms:rightsHolder>Museum of Vertebrate Zoology</dcterms:rightsHolder> <dcterms:rights>Creative Commons License</dcterms:rights> <dwc:institutionCode>MVZ</dwc:institutionCode> <dwc:collectionCode>Mammals</dwc:collectionCode> <dwc:occurrenceID>urn:catalog:MVZ:Mammals:14523</dwc:occurrenceID> <dwc:basisOfRecord>PreservedSpecimen</dwc:basisOfRecord> <dwc:country>Argentina</dwc:country> <dwc:countryCode>AR</dwc:countryCode> <dwc:stateProvince>Neuqun</dwc:stateProvince> <dwc:locality>25 km al NNE de Bariloche por Ruta 40 (=237)</dwc:locality> </dwr:SimpleDarwinRecord> </dwr:SimpleDarwinRecordSet> (Biodiversity Information Standards TDWG, 2009).

For further information on Dublin Core and other initiatives developed to accompany Darwin Core, visit the Biodiversity Information Standards TDWG website and the list of print and online resources listed below. Bloom, D., Blum, S., Doring, M., Giovanni, R., Guralnick, R., Robertson, T., Wieczorek, J. (2012). Darwin Core: An Evolving Community-Developed Biodiversity Data Standard. PLos One, 7(1), pp.1-7. Blum, S., & Urrizola, M. (2002). Integrating Bio-Collection Databases: Metadata in Natural History Muesums. In J. Ahronheim, J. Crawford, B. Eden, & W. Jones (Eds.), Cataloging the Web: Metadata, AACR, and MARC 21 (pp. 113-117). Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press Inc. Biodiversity Information Standards TDWG. (2011a). Darwin Core Terms: A complete historical record. Retrieved from http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/history/index.htm

Biodiversity Information Standards TDWG. (2011b). Darwin Core Decision History. Retrieved from http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/history/decisions/index.htm Biodiversity Information Standards TDWG (2011c). Darwin Core Terms: A quick reference guide. Retrieved from http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm Biodiversity Information Standards TDWG. (2009). Simple Darwin Core. Retrieved from http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/simple/index.htm#howtouse Biodiversity Information Standards TDWF. (2010). Darwin Core XML Guide. Retrieved from http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/guides/xml/index.htm

Global Biodiversity Information Facility. n.d. Darwin Core. Retrieved from http://www.gbif.org/informatics/standards-and-tools/publishing-data/data-standards/darwin-corearchives/ Priscilla, C. (2003). Metadata Fundamentals for All Librarians. Chicago: American Library Association.

Darwin Core is a simple and flexible way to share data in the biodiversity community. In addition to this aspiration, the Dublin Core provides that common ground that the biodiversity community needed to document information for researchers and museum collections. The similarities to Dublin Core also give those that have a basic familiarity of Dublin Core to understand how to use Darwin Core and perhaps build upon Simple Darwin Core. As technology continues to change around and within the biodiversity community, Darwin Core has a bright future because it provides the basic framework to build upon as well as the potential to attract new users to the schema that find other schemas difficult to use. Like any schema, Darwin Core is not perfect and it does not have terms that can attract users of all sectors of the biodiversity community that are interested in a specified term list than provided (Bloom et al., 2012, p. 5). Extensions have been made to the Darwin Core, but as new versions will most likely follow, improvements will be made or perhaps Darwin Core will inspire others within the community to create a related schema that will still allow Darwin Core to be the basis schema.

Martinez/p. 6
PBCore PBCore was developed and funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and released in 2005. The schema was created as a metadata dictionary to facilitate sharing among broadcasting stations and to provide a structure for media. The metadata schema allows the broadcasting community to create data for audiovisual media such as radio and television program in analog or digital. According to the PBcore official website, the schema is utilized as a data model for media cataloging and asset management systems and it enables data exchange between media collections, systems, and organizations (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, About, n.d.). Initially, elements for PBcore were proposed and reviewed at the 2003 Dublin Core Conference and members of the Public Broadcasting Metadata Dictionary Project created papers, presentations, and other tools in order to promote the need for a standard metadata schema for the community. As a result of the promotion, ninety six percent of people that attended the conference and read the tools prepared by the PBMD project wanted a standard for audiovisual and thought that PBCore fit the need (Mohn, 2007, p. 35).

The importance of PBCore to the broadcasting community was significant as it provided a standard that was much needed for the sharing of audiovisual media. The development of PBCore was important to the broadcasting community, particularly public broadcasting, because unlike commercial broadcasting stations, public broadcasting stations did not have a standard that is directly imposed on them by a corporations administration and the public broadcasting community nationally was influenced to create PBCore in order to address this issue (Mohn, 2007, p. 35). In addition to this concern, the broadcasting community noticed the importance of adapting to the changing environment and felt that they needed to develop and deliver content across multiple platforms, strengthen our editorial and service partnerships, and engage in more efficient methods of conducting our new and legacy activities (Baker, Bloss, Brooks, Burrows, Efthimiadis, MacCarn, Shepard, Twohill, & White, 2003, p. 214). The broadcasting community from the beginning recognized the importance of developing PBCore because they were interested in a seamless schema that allowed users to share data and provided the community with a metadata standard framework to build upon in order to cater to the interests of specialized users (Baker et al., 2003, p. 215).

PBCore has forty-eight main elements and sub elements that are similar to Dublin Core qualifiers; PBCore is expressed in PBCore XML. The elements are within three categories: thirteen elements are in the content category, seven elements are in the intellectual property category, and twenty-eight elements are within the instantiation category which describe a physical or digital nature of an item (Cox, Mulder, & Tadic, 2006, p. 49). A fourth category is titled extensions and it provides specialized elements for users. The addition of the fourth category adds five additional elements that are organized in fifteen containers and three sub containers (Mohn, 2007, p. 36). Root elements include pbcoreDescriptionDocument, pbcoreCollection, and pbcoreInstantiationDocument (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Elements, n.d.). The current version, PBCore 2.0, however is made up of four categories, fifteen containers, and eighty-two elements (Coporation for Public Broadcasting, Documentation). While developing PBCore, members of PBMD project considered other

schemas and decided to build PBCore upon Dublin Core (Mohn, 2007, p. 35). Other schemas that the project considered when developing PBCore were OAIS, SMEF-DM, MARC, METS, MPEG-7, SCORM, LOM, and IMS, however they were found to be too broad descriptively and did not cover the needs of the broadcasting community. PBCore is different from other schemas considered because it contains the elements as needed by small and large broadcasting stations (Baker et al., 2003, p. 215).

An example of a PBCore record is seen below in text and in XML. This particular example is moving image as a single physical videotape. It has a single physical instantiation and the repetition of the pbcoreCoverage element.

(Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 2005a). <PBCoreDescriptionDocument xmlns="http://www.pbcore.org/PBCore/PBCoreNamespace.html " xmlns:fmp="http://www.filemaker.com/fmpxmlresult"xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/X MLSchemainstance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.pbcore.org/PBCore/PBCoreNamespace.html http://www.pbcore.org/PBCore/PBCoreSchema.xsd"> <pbcoreIdentifier> <identifier>8sMPyUcqFUTvVHzq1bNB</identifier> <identifierSource>PBCore Cataloging Tool</identifierSource> </pbcoreIdentifier> <pbcoreTitle> <title>Secrets of the Lost Canyon</title>

Martinez/p. 8
<titleType>Program</titleType> </pbcoreTitle> <pbcoreSubject> <subject> Prehistoric Native American culture; Desert Cultures; Ancestral Puebloans; Anasazi; Fremont culture; Prehistoric art; Early Native American arts and crafts; Prehistoric Native American arts and crafts; Desert Cultures; Desert Gatherer arts and crafts; Range Creek Canyon, Utah </subject> <subjectAuthorityUsed>Library of Congress Subject Headings</subjectAuthorityUsed> </pbcoreSubject> <pbcoreDescription> <description> When the existence of Range Creek Canyon, with its hundreds--if not thousands--of ancient, undisturbed, Fremont Indian sites was announced in the Summer of 2004, worldwide interest focused on a unique parcel of land wedged in a remote corner of Utah.A Utah ranching family had defied the pressures of encroaching modern society and tourism. The Wilcox family had protected Range Creek Canyon's ancient sites of the now-vanished Fremont Indians. Despite the passing of five hundred years since the mysterious disappearance of the Fremonts, the sites and their artifacts had remained untouched. It was shaping up to be a wonderland for archaeologists. But, behind the headlines and the media hype, there were other stories to be found. Stories that unveiled political deal making, competing interests forced into uneasy alliances and unspoken pressures that could shape the fate of Range Creek Canyon. </description> <descriptionType>Abstract</descriptionType> </pbcoreDescription> <pbcoreGenre> <genre> Documentary; Educational; History; Politics; Western; Nature; Science; Environment </genre> <genreAuthorityUsed>PBCore Genre Picklist</genreAuthorityUsed> </pbcoreGenre> <pbcoreRelation> <relationType>relationType0</relationType> <relationIdentifier>relationIdentifier0</relationIdentifier> </pbcoreRelation> <pbcoreCoverage> <coverage> Range Creek Canyon; Emery County; Utah; United States of America </coverage> <coverageType>Spatial</coverageType> </pbcoreCoverage> <!-pbcoreCoverage container is repeated for Temporal description. --> <pbcoreCoverage> <coverage>

Contemporary early 21st Century archeological preservation; Fremont Culture up to 1500 AD </coverage> <coverageType>Temporal</coverageType> </pbcoreCoverage> <pbcoreAudienceLevel> <audienceLevel>General</audienceLevel> </pbcoreAudienceLevel> <pbcoreAudienceRating> <audienceRating>TV-G</audienceRating> </pbcoreAudienceRating> <pbcoreCreator> <creator>KUED-TV 7</creator> <creatorRole>Producer</creatorRole> </pbcoreCreator> <pbcoreContributor> <contributor/> <contributorRole/> </pbcoreContributor> <pbcorePublisher> <publisher>KUED-TV. University of Utah</publisher> <publisherRole>Copyright Holder</publisherRole> </pbcorePublisher> <pbcoreRightsSummary> <rightsSummary>Copyright 2006 KUED-TV, University of Utah</rightsSummary> </pbcoreRightsSummary> <pbcoreInstantiation> <dateCreated>2006-05-11</dateCreated> <dateIssued>2006-09-10</dateIssued> <formatPhysical>Betacam SP</formatPhysical> <formatDigital/> <formatLocation>KUED Program Vault</formatLocation> <formatMediaType>Moving Image</formatMediaType> <formatGenerations>Moving image/Distribution dub</formatGenerations> <formatStandard>NTSC video (interlaced)</formatStandard> <formatEncoding/> <formatFileSize/> <formatTimeStart/> <formatDuration>56:46:00</formatDuration> <formatDataRate/> <formatBitDepth/> <formatSamplingRate/> <formatFrameSize>640x480</formatFrameSize> <formatAspectRatio>4:3 (16:9 letterbox)</formatAspectRatio> <formatFrameRate>29.97 fps (59.94 fields/sec)</formatFrameRate> <formatColors>Color with B&W sequences</formatColors> <formatTracks>1 video and 1 audio track</formatTracks>

Martinez/p. 10
<formatChannelConfiguration>Stereo audio</formatChannelConfiguration> <language>eng</language> <alternativeModes>Closed Captioned in English</alternativeModes> <pbcoreDateAvailable> <dateAvailableStart>2006-11-20</dateAvailableStart> <dateAvailableEnd>2007-02-14</dateAvailableEnd> </pbcoreDateAvailable> <pbcoreFormatID> <formatIdentifier>KUED-5689.45</formatIdentifier> <formatIdentifierSource>KUED-TV 7</formatIdentifierSource> </pbcoreFormatID> <pbcoreAnnotation> <annotation/> </pbcoreAnnotation> </pbcoreInstantiation> <pbcoreExtension> <extension/> <extensionAuthorityUsed/> </pbcoreExtension> </PBCoreDescriptionDocument> (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2005b).

For further information on PBCore, visit the PBCore Public Broadcasting Metadata Dictionary Project website and the list of print and online resources listed below. Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from http://www.pbcore.org/about/ Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (n.d.). Elements. Retrieved from http://www.pbcore.org/elements/ Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (n.d.) Documentation. Retrieved from http://www.pbcore.org/documentation/ Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (2005a). PBCore: Sample Metadata Records & Descriptions Sample Metadata Record 01. Retrieved from http://pbcore.org/PBCore/PBCore_SampleRecords/PBCore_Sample_01.html Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (2005b). XML document for Sample #01. Retrieved from http://pbcore.org/PBCore/PBCore_SampleRecords/sample01.xml Cox, M., Mulder, E., & Tadic, L. (2006). Descriptive Metadata for Television: An End-to-End Introduction. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Mohn, S. (2007). PBCore: Public Broadcastings Metadata Scheme for Audio and Video Files. MAC Newsletter, 35-40.

While, A., Baker, A., Bloss, M., Burrows, P., Efthimiadis, E., Brooks, M., MacCarn, D., Shepard, T., & Twohill, C. (2003). PB Core--the Public Broadcasting Metadata Initiative: Progress Report. International Conference On Dublin Core And Metadata Applications, 213222. Retrieved from http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/pubs/article/view/749

PBCore is the answer and the option that the broadcasting community needed in order to share data and does not limit the community to the type of media that can be described. The main purpose behind PBCore was to develop a single standardized scheme for public and commercial broadcasting stations. In the future, PBCore could continue to see specialized improvements that are directed towards specific sectors of the broadcasting community. PBCore is different from other schemas because community members that understand the prior difficulty of sharing media information in a time when new technologies are emerging.

Martinez/p. 12
Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) Developed in 1995, the Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) is a metadata schema created to describe data in the social sciences and is an international group of social science information creators and data archivists (DDI Alliance, 2009c). Current versions of DDI allows users to enter data from the entire research life cycle that includes data conceptualization, collection, processing, distribution, discovery, analysis, repurposing, and archiving (DDI Alliance, 2009b). Two of the main goals behind the development of DDI was to create an international standard for describing research in the social sciences community and the need for a better documentation standard (Heus, Thomas, & Vardigan, 2008, p. 109). A newer format to document data was also needed; OSIRIS was an existent standard used in the community since the 1970s and was not useful for the modern needs of the community (Priscilla, 2003, p. 145). In order to continue improving the schema, DDI is split into DDI Codebook and DDI Lifecycle that releases new versions every so often. The current version of the codebook is DDI-Codebook 2.5 and it was published in January of 2012. The current version of lifecycle is DDI-Lifecycle 3.1 and it was published in October of 2009 with a new version under review. DDI Lifecycle was created to document data from the entire research life cycle and is encoded in XML Schema. Unlike lifecycle that is detailed and extensive, DDI Codebook is a simpler version of the schema that allows users to record survey information and is encoded in XML Schema (DDI Alliance, 2009a). Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) is important to the social sciences community because it provides a variety of positives for the documentation of research. The importance of a standard in the social science community was to allow users to access data, supports the preservation of data, ensures the quality of data, and support the establishment of results-based monitoring (Heus, Thomas, & Vardigan, 2008, p. 108). In addition, the importance of a standardized schema is needed for the sharing of social science data on an international level especially if the data is needed to supplement new research such as a survey of existent research. However, in order to do this, a schema that effectively documents data is needed. To further ensure that data is being used effectively within the social sciences community, there is a need to effectively document data from the beginning to the end of the research project in order to accuratly represent and archive data (Heus, Thomas, & Vardigan, 2008, p. 108). Additional reasons as to why an effective documentation standard such as DDI was needed for the social sciences community is because of the disconnect existent between the creators and users of data and because data is not useful to users without some level of documentation (Priscilla, 2003, p. 145). As previously explained, DDI can be used by utilizing DDI Lifecycle (formally DTD) and DDI Codebooks depending on the nature of the data. Within codebook, there are five main categories that include <docDscr> bibliographic description, <stdyDscr> that holds information on the collection, study or compilation, <fileDscr> describes specific variables, and <otherMat> describes additional materials related to the data file. Two main sections in <docSrc> are <citation> and <docSrc>. Within <stdyDscr>, there are six subsections that include <citation>, <stdyInfo>,<method>, <dataAccs>, <otherStdyMat>, and <notes>. The <fileDscr> section has two subsections that include file description and <notes>. The variable category includes three subsections <varGrp>, <var>, and <notes>. In the additional materials category, there are no main subsections and sub elements. The subsections in this category refer to additional materials that are useful to the document file. Additional materials that could be used are survey

questionnaires, notes, user manuals, computer programs, tables, and text (Priscilla, 2003, p. 146148). Further explanation of the specific elements used in codebook and lifecycle can be found on the DDI Alliance web page titled DDI Specification at the following address http://www.ddialliance.org/Specification/. DDI is different from other standards because it provides simple and detailed options to document data. However, the DDI standard does build upon other standards such as OSIRIS, the previous standard used in the community and the Standard Study Description, both of which are incredibly detailed. The social sciences community could have used one of the many standards available, but they fell short of including the specific information specifically important to them (Blank, & Rasmussen, 2007, p. 63). In addition, DDI is different from other schemas because it allows for detailed searching and is easily accessible as long as a user has Internet and access to the data. The DDI schema is a good fit for a research community with limited funds (Blank, & Rasmussen, 2007, p. 66). The United States Congressional Survey, 1975 is an example of an XML record using DDI Codebooks Versions 1 through 2.1. The following example is only half of the XML record and the full record can be viewed at http://www.ddialliance.org/sites/default/files/07377.xml. <codeBook><docDscr source="archive"><citation><titlStmt><titl> United States Congressional Survey, 1975 </titl><IDNo agency="ICPSR">7377</IDNo></titlStmt><rspStmt><AuthEnty>United Nations Association of the United States of America</AuthEnty></rspStmt><prodStmt><producer abbr="ICPSR" affiliation="Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan"> Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research</producer><copyright>ICPSR, 2000</copyright><prodDate date="2000-05-12">May 12, 2000</prodDate><prodPlac>Ann Arbor, Michigan: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research</prodPlac><software version="1.0" date="1999-05">SoftQuad XMetaL</software><fundAg abbr="NSF">National Science Foundation</fundAg><grantNo>SBR-9617813</grantNo></prodStmt><distStmt><distrbtr abbr="ICPSR" affiliation="Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan">Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research</distrbtr><distDate date="2000-0512">May 12, 2000</distDate></distStmt><verStmt><version type="version" date="2000-0512">1</version><verResp affiliation="ICPSR">Mary Vardigan</verResp><notes>This XML document was initially prepared for the Data Documentation Initiative Beta Test. It was subsequently revised to comply with Version 1 of the DDI Document Type Definition (DTD).</notes></verStmt></citation><docSrc source="archive"> (DDI Alliance, 2012). For further information on DDI, DDI CodeBooks, and DDI Lifecycle, visit the DDI Documentation Initiative website compiled by the DDI Alliance at http://www.ddialliance.org/. The following list includes additional resources in print and online with information on DDI.

Martinez/p. 14
Blank, G., & Rasmussen, K.B. (2007). The data documentation initiative: a preservation standard for research. Archival Science, 7(1), pp. 55-71. DDI Alliance. (2009a). DDI Specification. Retrieved from http://www.ddialliance.org/Specification/ DDI Alliance. (2009b). What is DDI? Retrieved from http://www.ddialliance.org/what DDI Alliance. (2009c). History of the Standard. Retrieved from http://www.ddialliance.org/what/history.html DDI Alliance. (2012). Marked-up Codebooks (Under Construction). Retrieved from www.ddialliance.org/resources/tools/codebooks Heus, P., Thomas, W., & Vardigan, M. (2008). Data Documentation Imitative: Toward a Standard for the Social Sciences. The International Journal of Digital Curation, 3(1), pp. 107113. Priscilla, C. (2003). Metadata Fundamentals for All Librarians. Chicago: American Library Association. Treadwell, W. (2002). DDI, the Data Documentation Initiative: An Introduction to the Standard and Its Role in Social Science Data Access. In J. Ahronheim, J. Crawford, B. Eden, & W. Jones (Eds.), Cataloging the Web: Metadata, AACR, and MARC 21 (pp. 155-167). Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press Inc. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) is a standard developed with the needs of the social science community in mind and continues to improve it with additional specifications. The standard has an emphasis on the user and how to best access data at all levels of the research process. In a way, the DDI standard allows researchers to keep track of their research process and preserve their research for future use. An additional positive within DDI is that it gives users within the social sciences community the option to choose the level of documentation they need without the worry that the process of documentation will be complex. DDI, like other the standards covered in the report, will continue to see improvements in future and will adapt to the changes in technology in the future.

Resources Bloom, D., Blum, S., Doring, M., Giovanni, R., Guralnick, R., Robertson, T., Wieczorek, J. (2012). Darwin Core: An Evolving Community-Developed Biodiversity Data Standard. PLos One, 7(1), pp.1-7. Blum, S., & Urrizola, M. (2002). Integrating Bio-Collection Databases: Metadata in Natural History Muesums. In J. Ahronheim, J. Crawford, B. Eden, & W. Jones (Eds.), Cataloging the Web: Metadata, AACR, and MARC 21 (pp. 113-117). Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press Inc. Biodiversity Information Standards TDWG. (2011a). Darwin Core Terms: A complete historical record. Retrieved from http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/history/index.htm Biodiversity Information Standards TDWG. (2011b). Darwin Core Decision History. Retrieved from http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/history/decisions/index.htm Biodiversity Information Standards TDWG (2011c). Darwin Core Terms: A quick reference guide. Retrieved from http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm Biodiversity Information Standards TDWG. (2009). Simple Darwin Core. Retrieved from http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/simple/index.htm#howtouse Biodiversity Information Standards TDWF. (2010). Darwin Core XML Guide. Retrieved from http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/guides/xml/index.htm Blank, G., & Rasmussen, K.B. (2007). The data documentation initiative: a preservation standard for research. Archival Science, 7(1), pp. 55-71. Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from http://www.pbcore.org/about/ Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (n.d.). Elements. Retrieved from http://www.pbcore.org/elements/ Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (n.d.) Documentation. Retrieved from http://www.pbcore.org/documentation/ Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (2005a). PBCore: Sample Metadata Records & Descriptions Sample Metadata Record 01. Retrieved from http://pbcore.org/PBCore/PBCore_SampleRecords/PBCore_Sample_01.html Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (2005b). XML document for Sample #01. Retrieved from http://pbcore.org/PBCore/PBCore_SampleRecords/sample01.xml Cox, M., Mulder, E., & Tadic, L. (2006). Descriptive Metadata for Television: An End-to-End Introduction. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Martinez/p. 16
DDI Alliance. (2009a). DDI Specification. Retrieved from http://www.ddialliance.org/Specification/ DDI Alliance. (2009b). What is DDI? Retrieved from http://www.ddialliance.org/what DDI Alliance. (2009c). History of the Standard. Retrieved from http://www.ddialliance.org/what/history.html DDI Alliance. (2012). Marked-up Codebooks (Under Construction). Retrieved from www.ddialliance.org/resources/tools/codebooks Global Biodiversity Information Facility. n.d. Darwin Core. Retrieved from http://www.gbif.org/informatics/standards-and-tools/publishing-data/datastandards/darwin-core-archives/ Heus, P., Thomas, W., & Vardigan, M. (2008). Data Documentation Imitative: Toward a Standard for the Social Sciences. The International Journal of Digital Curation, 3(1), pp. 107-113. Mohn, S. (2007). PBCore: Public Broadcastings Metadata Scheme for Audio and Video Files. MAC Newsletter, 35-40. Priscilla, C. (2003). Metadata Fundamentals for All Librarians. Chicago: American Library Association. While, A., Baker, A., Bloss, M., Burrows, P., Efthimiadis, E., Brooks, M., MacCarn, D., Shepard, T., & Twohill, C. (2003). PB Core--the Public Broadcasting Metadata Initiative: Progress Report. International Conference On Dublin Core And Metadata Applications, 213-222. Retrieved from http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/pubs/article/view/749