The research done by ADL suggests that users expect learning repositories to store 

metadata about the resources they contain. In addition users expect the metadata schema 

used to improve interoperability by conforming to a standard such as IMS or Dublin Core.  

Almost all respondents wrote that they expected repositories to store meta 

data about the objects they contained. Further expectations that built upon 

this central expectation included conformance to specific meta data 

standards such as the Dublin Core.  

[ADL 2004, p.4] 

Encouragingly this suggests that users understand the importance of metadata in the 

retrieval of resources, raising several issues.  

There is an ongoing debate about who should assume the role of metadata creator and the 

role of validating the quality of the metadata (see Currier et. al, 2004). Learning repositories 

may base their strategies on the more traditional library within an institution. The goals are 

often the same, with the primary goals being the storage and retrieval of knowledge. If 

metadata creation for library resources is carried out by trained information professionals, 

why is there such a debate about the requirement for an academic creator of e learning 

content to be involved in the process of metadata creation at all; how can an author be 

expected understand the complexities of standard vocabularies or the classification scheme 

used within academia? In other words, why is there such a debate in the context of 

electronic learning repositories if their objectives are so similar to that of libraries? 

The reasons seem to stem from factors such as, funding, quality of metadata and the 

introduction of workflow. There is a constant tradeoff between the author of the resource 

creating the metadata and qualified information professional. It is argued that the author of 

the resource is the most suitable metadata creator as they understand its contents and 

purpose, although at the same time the expertise required to catalogue a resource effectively 

is underestimated.  

Some collections that leave metadata submission open to the public suffer 

from blank fields and fields containing information that is ambiguous or of 

poor quality.  

[ADL 2003, p.15] 

As the retrieval of resources depends on the search engine and inevitably the underlying 

metadata, the repository is dramatically affected. However, with the introduction of workflow 

has come the ability to share the metadata creation process between multiple roles. This has 

meant that a record can be split up and directed to the most appropriate person in the 

workflow. Often basic mandatory metadata fields such as title and description are left for the 

author of the resource and the remaining record is completed by a qualified cataloguer. 

In the report [ADL 2004], additional expectations from users regarding metadata 

management included: 

1.  Metadata editing tools built into the repository interface 

2.  Metadata schemas based on Interoperability standards 

3.  Automatic metadata creation 

4. Resource 

classification 

As with all user expectations, the additional requirements above are restricted by issues 

such as choosing the right metadata standard to adopt, implementing the most appropriate 

classification schemes, and providing the maximum amount of automatic metadata creation 

without affecting the quality of the completed record. 

In order to develop high quality metadata to meet the standards set out above JORUM is 

working with the Resource Discovery Network (RDN)

1

. The RDN is a JISC service to further 

1

 Resource Discovery Network at 

www.rdn.ac.uk

Page 12 of 84