Discussions
Categories
Groups
Community Home
Categories
INTERNAL ENABLEMENT
POPULAR
PUBLIC CLOUD
PRIVATE CLOUD
Quick Links
MY LINKS
HELPFUL TIPS
Back to website
Home
Web CMS (TeamSite)
Mapping DCMI metadata to EAs
System
Hey folks -
This might actually belong in the metatagger forum, but I'm going to try here first in case someone else has already thought through this. The Dublin Core metadata specifications have a core principle that there is a one to one mapping between metadata elements and values. However, multiple iterations of an individual element are allowed, so, if you had an asset that had keywords of "cat", "****", "kitty kitty", and "feline", you would end up with four iterations of the element:
dc:subject=cat
dc:subject=****
dc:subject=kitty kitty
dc:subject=feline
Because EAs are implemented as simple key value pairs, you can't model that in TeamSite. The lack of flexibility on the metadata capture CGI also makes this a pain in the rump. My solution thus far has been to break the rule and do a delimited list of values for an element, but I was curious if anyone had a better solution. If I ever have to do an import or export of metadata to another system, or build a crosswalk into a master metadata repository that uses a different classification system, I expect it would be a pain.
Thoughts?
Find more posts tagged with
Comments
jbonifaci
If you're going to use teamsite metadata/ea's, then I think you're right, you probably have to break the rules, as there aren't many options. The option you picked is likely the best, but I'll throw two other ideas out there for you. One would be to set multiple ea's, but with some sort of suffix, like keyword.1, keyword.2, keyword.3, etc.. The other option that you probably couldn't accomplish with metatagger, would be to have one EA called metadata that you had all of your metadata in some delimited for, like:
"
Metadata
"
=
"
"keyword"="keywordOne"
;
[color=red]"
keyword"="keywordTwo"[/color]
;
[color=lime]"
keyword"="keywordThree"[/color]
;
[color=darkorange]"
keyword"="keywordFour"[/color]
"
You'd probably have to encode your quotes and this would obviously be more parsing, but it's another option. Like I said, I think your option is likely the best, but wanted to throw some other ideas out there for you to help give you some other ideas.
~Jeff
Migrateduser
The multiple numbered fields thing is actually what we've tended to do in the past. I'm not a huge fan of it, because it limits you to only having X number of iterations of that element, and it means you have lots of empty fields if the user only has one iteration to enter for that element.