Working Group Reports on Metadata

While there are many metadata standards for a wide variety of objects, collections, and cataloguing methods, universally recognized standards for metadata related to 3D data has not yet been codified. Through this presentation, we hope to describe current use of 3D metadata standards, discuss recommended fields, and perform gap analysis with feedback from the CS3DP Forum 2 attendees to further inform our work moving forward. Within the scope of 3D data being considered, there are essentially two very broad categories of data generation: scan-to-mesh, where the data generated originates directly from interaction with a physical, real world object by means of external technology such as photogrammetry, laser scanner or CT; and born-digital, where the data generated is created exclusively within the confines of 3D design software such as AutoCAD or AutoDesk, based on a variety of sources including personal research, algorithmically derived analysis, or carefully informed projections. In both cases, a large quantity of information is available with regards to the quantity, quality, and origin of the 3D data being created but there are not yet universal guidelines on what information needs to be stored and how. In order to better understand the range of metadata practices in the cataloging and preservation of 3D data, we conducted a survey in spring and summer 2018. We received responses from nine different institutions and found that they use a wide variety of existing metadata standards and workflows. We are comparing these institutions’ metadata practices by organizing their standards into a spreadsheet, sorting each metadata field into broad categories, and attempting to identify potential crosswalks to establish commonalities in the following categories: Project Level, Item Level, Capture, Rights/Access, and Descriptive vs Technical (capture/processing). The collation of this data will be used to facilitate the assessment of current metadata standards for the preservation and management of 3D data and begin a conversation with Forum 2 participants about what fields and classes of metadata are most crucial for their work. Based on these existing established standards, we hope to ultimately create a series of best practices for 3D metadata, rather than a hard and fast series of fields based on specific ontologies or schemas. Using the information gathered from our survey, we will begin gap analysis with the aid of Forum 2 participants. While we have striven to collect as many responses as possible from a representative cross-section of 3D data creators and managers, we recognize that there are those with expertise who may not have been able to participate in virtual meetings thus far. As such, fueled by the previous discussion, we will facilitate a discussion of metadata information that may include vital but unaccounted for metadata needs and evaluate where the pain points are in current 3D metadata practices. This will include a discussion of questions that 3D data producers and consumers may need metadata to answer in order to best enable potential reuse or reference. The results of these conversations will be used to assess and augment proposed best practices for capture, collection, and collation of metadata for 3D objects and how this relates to best practices for the preservation of this information, whether it be as research data, within library collections, or in digital repositories.