Group Member Names: Jake Bailey, Claire Heilman, Maddie Russell

Name of Imaginary Institution: Domesticated Animals of America Museum (DAAM)

Name of Imaginary Digital Collection: Dogs of America

Our museum, Domesticated Animals of America Museum (DAAM), specializes in

artifacts documenting the three identified categories of Zooarchaeology: pets (dogs, cats,

hamsters, etc.), livestock (cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, etc.), and beasts of burden (horses, camels,

donkeys, etc.). The special collection of the museum that we are representing within our report is

Dogs of America, a digital repository that houses digitally born resources. The user population

intended to utilize the repository is the general public and those who study the history of

domestication and phenotypic behavioral/physiological alterations.

This collection is of crucial importance to the study of domestication because it allows

the general public and researchers to obtain information within a digital landscape, regardless of

location through general unrestricted access. By studying interspecies relationships and co-

evolution via digital photographs, we can better understand the past and future trajectories for the

human use of animals, induced evolution, hybridization, and the role animals play in everyday

life.

Our local elements were selected after careful consideration of what best represented our

repository and the needs–or projected needs–of our users. The local elements map to Dublin

Core (Simple and Qualified) and MODS (Metadata Object Description Schema). Through the

use of reputable and accessible online sources such as Dogtime and the American Kennel Club

to represent our descriptive metadata specific to dogs, we attempted to create records that are

accessible for the general patron as well as those familiar with dog breed specifications.
 The group worked as a collective whole throughout the project to develop our MAP,

create our XML records, and refine our understanding of our local schema. We met once a week

for several hours, over Zoom, to walk through the assignment details, create our local schema,

and to provide feedback to each other regarding challenges faced during the implementation

process. One of the first major challenges we faced was determining that the metadata for

resources in our repository would be better expressed in MODS rather than VRA through our

consultation with Professor Roke. After that realization, we began studying the MODS crosswalk

in-depth in order to ascertain if we should indeed change our selected schema. Upon determining

that we could–and should–implement MODS, we began recreating our MAP to cohere with the

new schema format.

Once we began to input our metadata into each of the schemas based on our local

guidelines, we discovered that MODS had substantial crossover with our local elements.

However, utilizing Simple and Qualified Dublin Core, led to a loss of information in the sense

that the metadata lost clarity in what it represented. For example, our local guidelines stated to

include the name of the pet depicted in the image under the element petName, but when cross-

walking from our local elements to the Dublin Core subject element, it became unclear what

relation this name has to the record. In an attempt to make our local element requirements clear

during the crosswalk to Dublin Core, we determined that we would include the parenthetical

citation of the word “dog” following each dog name placed in a subject field.

Another loss of information that occurred from cross-walking from our elements to

Simple and Qualified Dublin Core, was the ability to discern certain authorities being used. All

these challenges were rectified through constant communication among group members. One

example of change we recognized was the need to alter the definition and requirement for
scientificName. Originally, we had it listed as a wrapper element pertaining to breed information,

however in a museum repository of our imaginary size, being able to record the type of animal

and additional attributes related to the image is crucial to the function of the metadata. Upon

discussing this issue, we decided to remove scientificName as a wrapper element and instead

have the wrapper be named petInfo with scientificName appearing as a sub-element alongside

other sub-elements such as breedName, petName, and petSize. This was done in order to fully

record what type of animal appeared in a given record.

An additional correction we perceived through discussion was removing the element of

fur color. It was eliminated due to lack of controlled vocabulary and the issue of digitally

recording historical black and white photos. We believe that inclusion of this element could lead

to a misrepresentation of the search results within the context of the museum. Additionally, if

one searches for “black and white,” it could pull up all of the photos from other collections of

cats, dogs, cows, etc., tagged with the subjects black and white as opposed to just the coloration

of the animal depicted.

Additionally, throughout the lifecycle of our definitions for each element, it was resolved

that stating the vocabulary source within a description or notes section would act as the

indication of which authority was used within the description of the animal that would not

validate otherwise (something we encountered almost immediately through the decision to use

dogtime.com). Records have to validate in order to work!

Due to seamless and professional collaboration during schema creation, when we began

viewing each other's records, there was minimal correcting needed. To create records, we

decided that each member used available examples, referred to course provided materials, and
viewed other team member’s records within our shared folder to verify that our records aligned

with our MAP. With our final session we examined each record together, line by line, and

ensured the data matched across the schemas.

From this project experience we have gained a better understanding of metadata

application profiles, schemas, controlled vocabularies, and their importance to the inner

workings of often unseen cataloging practices. Furthermore, throughout the creation of our

metadata application profile and subsequent records, we solidified our understanding of the why

and the how catalogers create new, more enriched schemas.

 Photographs
Jake Bailey
Pet: Mumford the Maltipoo sporting a 'bone cigar.’ Photo taken in March of 2021 in Aurora, IL

Claire Heilman
Pet: A perpetually happy dog named Hennepin AKA Penny. Photo taken in May of 2021 in
Minneapolis, MN

Madison Russell
Pet: My sister in-law's dog, named Toaster. Photo taken for this project in Purcellville, VA
 Citations

Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 4). List of domesticated animals. Wikipedia. Retrieved
April 21, 2022, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_animals

Using Dublin Core. DublinCore. (2000, July 16). Retrieved April 24, 2022, from
https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/usageguide/2000-07-16/simple-
html/

Mods elements and attributes. Top-level Elements and Attributes, MODS User Guidelines,
Version 3 (Metadata Object Description Schema, Standards, Library of Congress). (n.d.).
Retrieved April 24, 2022, from
https://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/userguide/generalapp.html