VMAP.

A Dublin Core Application Profile

for Musical Resources

Carlos A. Iglesias1 , Mercedes Garijo2 , Daniel Molina1 , and Paloma de Juan2

1
Germinus XXI (Grupo Gesfor)?
2
Depto. Ingenierı́a de Sistemas Telemáticos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid??

Abstract. This paper details a Dublin Core Application Profile defined

for cataloguing musical resources defined within the European eContent-
Plus project Variazioni.The metadata model is based on FRBR and has
been formalised with DC-Text and implemented in an available web por-
tal where users and music institutions can catalogue their musical assets
in a collaborative way.

1 Introduction
According the Lynch [1], the new context for bibliographic control in the new
millennium will certainly reorder priorities for investment in bibliographic con-
trol practices and will change the way that cataloguing information is used.
He identifies three general approaches to identifying potentially relevant infor-
mation: through bibliographic surrogates that represent an intellectual analy-
sis and description of aspects and attributes of a work; through content-based
techniques that compare queries to parts of the actual works themselves (or to
computationally-derived surrogates for the works); and through social processes
that exploit the opinions and actions of communities that author, read, and eval-
uate works, and the information seeker’s view of those communities of people
involved.
This paper details a Dublin Core Application Profile (DCAP) defined for cat-
aloguing musical resources defined within the European eContentPlus project
Variazioni. Variazioni project aims at enriching musical contents provided by
musical institutions and end-users by combining the three processes: manual cat-
aloguing based on well-defined metadata by musical institutions and end users;
automatic cataloguing based on audio analysis, and social tagging. This paper
is focused on the definition of the metadata schema for manual cataloguing
The article is structured as follows. First, section 2 reviews the limitations of
existing metadata standards and projects for cataloguing musical assets. Then,
?
This research has been co-funded by the European Community under the programme
eContentPlus. The authors are solely responsible for this article and it does not
represent the opinion of the European Community. The European Community is
not responsible for any use that might be made of information contained within it.
??
This work has been partially funded by the Spanish Ministry of Industry, Trade and
Tourism under the Avanza Programme in the project Musiteca.
section 3 presents the model of the Variazioni Musical Dublin Core Application
Profile (VMAP). Finally, section 4 draws out some conclusions and future work.

2 Limitation of metadata standards for Musical Assets

After reviewing relevant metadata standards in different domains related with

music assets (Libraries, Museums, Education, Audivisual and Music), the first
conclusion is that any of the reviewed standards deal with the cataloguing of
music resources with enough detail for fitting user requirements in terms of
search facilities and collocations. In addition, there are important limitations in
traditional cataloguing systems for music resources
Traditional library cataloguing records, based on AACR2R [2] cataloguing
rules and MARC [3] bibliographic and authority standards have provided a solid
foundation for the required descriptive metadata elements for searching and re-
trieving works of music and are used by music cataloguing agencies worldwide [4].
Nevertheless, they present limitations for the music domain [5,4]. First, they lack
of adequate structural and administrative metadata for expressing the internal
structure of the musical objects. In addition, they consider only the role of au-
thor, while other roles such as peformer or composer which are relevant for
grouping results for end users are not considered. Other examples include limi-
tations with just one title (track title, CD container title, alternative title, etc.)
and with just one date (date of performance, composition, record creation, etc.),
or the lack of an object oriented metadata model which provides facilities for
including key entities such as composition, performer or composer.
FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) [6] has accom-
plished a shift in the cataloguing area, putting emphasis on a conceptual model
which is focused on the Work rather than on the Manifestation. FRBR has been
applied previously in the musical domain, and new library standards, such as
RDA [7] or IAP [8] are based on FRBR. Our conclusion is that FRBR is a
good starting point for defining and modelling Variazioni metadata. This con-
clusion could be considered in a wider scope. According to Gartner [9], “given the
complexity of metadata requirements, it is perhaps not surprising that no single
standard has yet emerged which addresses them all. Nonetheless, the emergence
of the standards detailed in this report, all of which are based on the Func-
tional Requirements for Bibliographical Records (FRBR) conceptual model, and
the interoperability allowed by their common language, does allow for a coherent
metadata landscape to be constructed on a sector-wide basis.”
METS [10] and MPEG-21 [11] are two standards which attempt to provide
overall frameworks within which descriptive, administrative and structural meta-
data. and have emerged from different communities [9]. While METS comes from
the library community (the MARC standards office), MPEG-21 comes from the
multimedia community. The project Variazioni counts with experts in MPEG-21,
and the resulting metadata will be available in MPEG-21.
Regarding the standards developed in the museum community, they deal
with aspects not relevant for Variazioni (physical location or provenance of the
items) and, in addition, there is an adaptation of FRBR, so-called FRBRoo,
which provides an effort in modelling CIDOC CRM [12] based on FRBR entities.
The usage of controlled vocabularies will be discussed in the presentation of the
Variazioni metadata model definition.
Another interesting specification is IAP (Image Application Profile) [13,8],
which defines an application profile based on DC, FRBR, VRA [14], CDWA [15]
andMIX [16]. The basic FRBR model is modified. For sake of clarity, FRBR
Work is renamed as Image, in order to distinguish the common use of work in
image cataloguing (the image, physical thing, manifestation) from the abstract
Work defined in FRBR. In addition, expression is omitted in this profile, since
it is not considered useful for cataloguing images.
In the musical domain, the most relevant projects are Variations [17,5,18,19],
Music Australia [20,21] and Harmos [22].
Harmos was an eContent project which preceded Variazioni and was focused
on cataloguing master classes. The educational taxonomy for cataloguing master
classes [22] has been included in this model.
Variations and MusicAustria have used FRBR as their basis. According to
Riley [23], FRBR is the most influential model and represents a great deal of
potential for search systems based on high-quality, structured metadata. Sev-
eral FRBR-like systems have been implemented for the music domain, such as
Variations2 [Not04] from Indiana University, the British Library Sound Archive
[Not04] Opera Archives [Pom05] and MusicAustralia [MAUrl]. The application
of FRBR [24] in the next version of AACR2, called RDA, has provided some
findings, such as 78% of works have only one manifestation, which could ques-
tion its benefits. Nevertheless, “works in fields like music, that appear in multiple
versions over time, will benefit the most from systems that implement FRBR
principles” [24]. Buchanan [25] has shown how users and librarians can benefit
from the exploitation of FRBR relationships, as well as the inclusion of new
services, such as alerts.
The music community has been very active in discussing modelling issues [26].
One of the problems that has been pointed out is how to deal with Music and
Lyrics in vocal music, which is the work (the music or the lyrics or both)?1 A
second problem is how FRBR model fits in non Western music tradition, where
there is not a previous Work.
Variations is focused on a digital music library, while our project addresses
a wide range of music contents, which has lead to distinguising different kinds
of musical contents and its physical embodiment in productions.
The Music ontology [27] is also based on FRBR, but, as well as MusicBrainz[28],
they are also focused on digital music libraries, which are not the only focus of
our project. Music Ontology has been considered very interesting and as future
work a mapping between our model and this ontology could be defined. Some
of the concepts of the Music ontology has been considered too complex for this
model. For example, a Composition is an Event which produces the Musical
Work. Variazioni Metadata model can contribute to this ontology refining some
of their concepts.
3 Metadata modelling for musical resources using FRBR

In this section it is discussed how the FRBR conceptual model can be applied
for cataloguing different types of musical contents, such as master classes videos
or digitalised scores. In order to understand better the relationship with FRBR,
a first identification of FRBR entities per musical content type has been carried
out as shown in table 1.

FRBR 1st Group Entities

Variazioni Contents
Work Expression Manifestation Item
Master class Master Class Class Event Production Media File
Score Composition Editorial Event Printing Media File
Concert Composition Concert event Production Media File
Image* Image itself “Event” Production Media File
Studio Recording Composition Production Event Production Media File
Libretto Composition, Editorial Event Production Media File
Lyrics
Table 1. Identification of FRBR entities

From the previous table, the following issues can be pointed out.

– Expression and Work entities are not easy to identify in some cases, such
as Master Classes or Conferences. This happens because the intellectual
or artistic activity (Work) emerges while the activity (Expression) is being
carried out. A similar issue has been previously reported for Western Music
or Jazz improvisation in FRBRList [26] or MusicAustralia [20].
– According to FRBR, an Expression is the realisation of one and only one
Work [6]. This can create some problems while cataloguing if the final digital
file contains several Expressions (for example, a video recording with several
performances or a digitalised score book with several scores, or a CD in only
one track) and there is not a segmentation tool available in the system. The
main Work entity in the music domain is Composition. Nevertheless, in some
musical contents, such as Master Classes or Conferences, the Composition is
not the intellectual / artistic activity of the Master class / Conference, but
it is commonly used to exemplify a concept. They are used as subjects.
– Managing image and ’event material’. The image content is problematic. For
example, let us consider a concert, where there are a video recording, an au-
dio recording and photos of the event. One natural alternative is considering
that all of them are ’Manifestations’ of the same Expression (the Concert)
but recorded in different media (image, video or sound). The main problem
is that the photo may not be easily linked to the performance of one partic-
ular Work, but to the general event. A similar case happens for cataloguing
related material such as the announcement poster of the Concert. According
to [29], these augmentations (illustrations, notes, glosses, etc.) of the Expres-
 sion should be considered separate Expressions of their own separate works,
but this makes the cataloguing more laborious.
– In digital libraries, the distinction between Manifestation and Item is not so
relevant, since there is only one copy of the work (the digital media). FRBR
cannot be considered as a data model, but a conceptual schema. FRBR does
not even require implementing the four entities of the first FRBR Group [29].
– While FRBR follows a top-down approach for cataloguing, cataloguing fol-
lows a bottom-up approach. Users or librarians catalogue an Item, not a
Work. Users should have an easy interface in order to catalogue their media
files, without being aware of the FRBR model. Expertise in implementing
FRBR in standard databases [20] has shown its utility for end users to find
relationships between items, which were hidden before its implementation.
Nevertheless, these experiences have shown that since FRBR provides sev-
eral alternatives during the cataloguing process, this can make the process
difficult to understand. Some examples of these difficulties are to decide
whether music and lyrics should be catalogued as different items, the defi-
nition of relationships between expressions (i.e. an interpretation (e1) based
on a libretto (e2) of a work (o1)), as the cataloguing of expressions based on
improvisation, such as jazz music and folk traditions.
– Cataloguing is commonly carried out in an iterative way in musical institu-
tions. Depending on the available resources, a media file can be catalogued
with very few metadata and catalogued more exhaustively when there are
more resources. This include the identification of the Composition (Work),
which can be delayed.

Fig. 1. VMAP and FRBR entities

 Based on the limitations identified above, an adaptation of FRBR for musical
resources is here proposed.
This model, Variazioni Musical Application Profile (VMAP) is based on the
existing FRBR entities, although these entities has been renamed and redefined
as shown in figure 1, in order to overcome the identified limitations. In particular:

– Work has been limited to Composition. A Composition is an original piece

of music.
– Expression has been redefined as Musical Content. A Musical Content (Mu-
sical Content Type) is a classification scheme of digital items which defines
the nature and descriptive metadata of the digital item. Some of the musi-
cal content types identified are Master Class, Conference, Libretto, Musical
Score, etc.
– Manifestation has been renamed as Production. A Production maintains all
the metadata related to the physical edition of a Musical Content, as well
as the structural metadata when the manifestation is composed of more
than one Media Fragment. The structural metadata can include the order
of different Media Fragments or the starting and end points of one media
file with different fragments (pages, seconds, frames, etc.). Two subtypes
of Production have been identifed, document and audiovisual, for defining
specific metadata.
– Item has been renamed as Media Fragment. A Media Fragment is a media
file or a fragment of it, and maintains all the relevant metadata of the media
file, including its title and licence.

W1. J. S. Bach’s Six suites for unaccompanied cello

E1. Transcription for classic guitar by Stanley Yates
M1. Publication of the guitar transcription by Mel Bay Publisher in 1988
I1. Exemplar of the book in library 1.
I2. Separata of the guitar edition in library 1.
E2. Performances by Janos Starker recorded in 1963 and 1965
M1. Recordings released on 33 1/3 rpm sound discs in 1965 by Mercury
M2. Recordings re-released on CD in 1991 by Mercury

Table 2. FRBR modelling. Legend: W: Work, E: Expression, M: Manifestation, I: Item

In order to clarify these elements, an example of how the same items are cat-
alogued according to standard FRBR and Variazioni Music Application Profile
is shown in tables 2 and 3 respectively.
From this example, the main differences of the model can be outlined. First of
all, according to FRBR, and Expression has one and only one Work, and this has
supposed the shift in focus from the resource (Manifestation) in the traditional
cataloguing world to the Work in FRBR. Our proposal consists of modifying
MC1. Score. Transcription for classic guitar by Santley Yates
C1: J. S. Bach’s Six suites for unaccompanied cello
P1: Book edition
MF1: Media file of the book (page range if book includes more compositions)
P2 Separata of the guitar edition
MF2: Media file of the separata
MC2. Studio Recording. Performances by Janos Starker recorded in 1963 and 1965
C1: J. S. Bach’s Six suites for unaccompanied cello
P3: Recordings released on 33 1/3 rpm sound discs in 1965 by Mercury.
MF3: Suite 1 media file (and details of the fragment, full or time range)
C2: J. S. Bach Suite 1 for unaccompanied cello [is-part-of C1]
MF4: Suite 2 media file (and details of the fragment, full or time range)
C3: J. S. Bach Suite 2 for unaccompanied cello [is-part-of C1]
...
MF8: Suite 6 media file (and details of the fragment, full or time range)
C7: J. S. Bach Suite 1 for unaccompanied cello [is-part-of C1]
P4: Recordings re-released on CD in 1991 by Mercury
MF9: Single media file of the suites

Table 3. VMAP modelling. Legend: C: Composition, MC:Music Content, P: Produc-

tion, MF: Music Fragment

the cardinality of the relationship hasWork between Work and Expression, from
1-1 in FRBR to M-M (many-to-many). This allows solving some of the previous
issues pointed out: (a) , since Compositions (Works) are not mandatory for a
Musical Content (Expression); and (b), since one Musical Content (Expression)
can have more than one associated Compositions (Works).
Another interesting change is the usage of the relationship hasSubject, in
particular for linking any element of the model with Composition. FRBR only
considers this relationship for Works. In our case, for example, for Master classes,
several Compositions could be the subject (or example) of a master class. In the
example previously presented, a Composition can be assigned as subject of a Me-
dia Fragment, avoiding the need for creating a new Expression. This is depicted
in figure 1, which points out two different kind of semantic relationships be-
tween Composition and Musical Content: isRealizedAs and hasSubject. In terms
of searchability, we have not found the need to distinguish between both in the
implementation of the model. Furthermore, it is possible to define the subject
of a media fragment, allowing a direct asignation
The relationships between the entities of the VMAP model are shown in
figure 2. It is important to point out the cardinality between Composition and
Musical Content. A Musical Content can have more than one Composition (as a
realisation or as a subject). In addition, Media Fragments can have one or more
Compositions as a subject or realisation. In order to simplify the cataloguing
process, it is not distinguished between the relationships isPerformedAs and
hasAsSubject, shown previously in figure 1.
 Fig. 2. VMAP model

It is important to point out, that VMAP considers MusicalContent as the

central entity. The entity Composition can be identified when there are resources
to do this catalogation, but it is not required, in contrast with FRBR, where the
entity Work should be identified in first place. According to the requirements of
the content providers in the project, the following musical contents have been
identified:

Score: Musical score, it can be an scanned handwritten, autograph or printed

score or a computerised score document.
Musical document: Document related with the musical domain, such as im-
age, libretto, literature on music, reference works, correspondence between
musicians, methods, press releases or concert programs.
Class: Audiovisual content about some pedagogical activity, such as master
class or regular class.
Conference: Audiovisual content recording of a conference about music.
Musical performance Audiovisual content with the recording of a musical
performance, such as concert, competition or musical event.

For each musical content type, specific metadata have been identifed as shown
in figure 4 and is formalised in [30].
This model has been formalised as a Dublin Core Application Profile for
describing digital musical contents hold by musical institutions or end users.
The concept of Application Profile has emerged within the Dublin Core Meta-
data Initiative. Dublin Core Application Profiles (DCAP) can be defined [31] as
schemas consisting of data elements drawn from one or more name spaces, com-
bined together by implementers, and optimised for a particular local application
 Fig. 3. Musical Content Entity

Dublin Core Application Guidelines [32] and the Singapore guidelines [33] have
been followed to document attributes drawn from other name spaces and the
declaration of new elements under the name space VMAP (Variazioni Musical
Application Profile)
The resulting DCAP is available at [30] and has been formalised with DC-
Text [34], where all the entities and properties have been formalised, as well
as 26 classification schemes. VMAP reuses several controlled vocabularies, such
as Getty Thesaurus for Geographical names [35], the thesaurus of Musical In-
struments [36] as well as metadata schemas such as FOAF [37] In addition, a
mapping to Simple Dublin Core has been defined in order to provide OAI-PMH
interoperability.
The model has been implemented following the aspect oriented content model
of Alfresco [38] and is publicly available at the Variazioni Content Enrichment
Model (CEP) [39].

4 Conclusions and Future work

This article has reviewed the practices in cataloguing musical contents and has
proposed a Dublin Core Application Profile for Musical Digital Contents.
The usage of FRBR as a basis for the musical metadata mode has provided
a suitable model, although the need to redefine the entities, could question the
suitability of this model and its interoperability, since several Dublin Core Appli-
cation Profile have followed the same approach in redefining core FRBR entities,
 Fig. 4. Subtypes of Musical Content Entity

as discussed in [40]. This could suggest the need of defining a more extensible
model based on FRBR, which would improve the interoperability. Although
VMAP has been defined for the musical domain, it could be applicable in other
arts, which is left to future work.
Defining a metadata schema which provides quality metadata is not an easy
task. It enables a trade-off between different quality properties, such as con-
sistency, completeness, accuracy, shareability, economic feasibility and usability.
One could think that the most complete and more metadata a schema has, the
more quality it has. Nevertheless, one of the common pitfalls pointed out in [41]
for providing shareable metadata is too much information. Economic and human
factors are also important in the definition of metadata, in order to provide un-
derstandable and effective metadata. Furthermore, natural resistance to change
is a challenge for adopting a new metadata model.
In order to define quality metadata, the process defined in [42] has been fol-
lowed for defining Variazioni Metadata Model, identifying external and internal
requirements. The implementation of the project has provided feedback about
the decisions taken in this definition.
Currently partners of Variazioni are working in the dissemination of the
VMAP model as well as the portal. Feedback from users will guide its evo-
lution. In addition, the Spanish project Musiteca has started a living lab for
classic musical contents where this DCAP will be validated with end users and
classical music content providers.
References

1. Lynch, C.: The new context for bibliographic control in the

new millennium. Library of Congress January, 2001. Available at:
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/lynch paper.html (2001)
2. Hunter, E.J.: AACR 2 : an introduction to the second edition of Anglo-American
cataloguing rules. London : C. Bingley ; Hamden, Conn. : Linnet Books (1979)
3. of Congress, L.: Marc (machine readable catalogue) web site. Available at
http://www.loc.gov/marc/ .
4. Hemmassi, H.: Why not MARC? In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Confer-
ence on Music Information Retrieval, ISMIR. (2002) 242–248
5. Minibbayeva, N., Dunn, J.W.: A digital library data model for music. In: Pro-
ceedings of the Second ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. (2002)
154–155
6. IFLA: FRBR functional requirements for bibliographic records. Technical report,
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, IFLA (1998)
Available at http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf.
7. for Development of RDA, J.S.C.: RDA: Resource description and access. Available
at ”http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rda.html#drafts”
8. JISC: Images application profile Available at
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Images Application Profile.
9. Gartner, R.: Metadata for digital libraries: state of the art and future directions.
JISC Technology and Standards Watch (2008)
10. Digital Library Federation: Metadata encoding and transmission standard: Primer
and reference manual. (September 2007)
11. Wan, X.: Mpeg-21 rights expression language: enabling interoperable digital rights
management. Multimedia IEEE 11(4) (October-December 2004) 84–87
12. of Museums, I.C.: Cidoc web site. Available at http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/
13. Eadie, M.: Towards an application profile for images. Ariadne Electronic Magazine
(55) (April 2008) Available at http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue55/eadie/.
14. of Image Media Professionals, I.A.
15. Trust, J.P.G.: Categories for description of works of art. Available at
http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting research/standards/cdwa/index.html
(2006)
16. NISO: MIX. NISO Metadata Standard for Images in XML Schema. technical meta-
data for still images standard. Available at http://www.loc.gov/standards/mix/
17. Dunn, J.W., Mayer, C.A.: Variations: A digital music library system at indiana
university. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, Berke-
ley, CA (1999) 12–19
18. Jenn Riley, Caitlin Hunter, C.C., Berry, A.: Definition of a frbr-based metadata
model for the indiana university variations3 project. Technical report, University
of Indiana (2007)
19. Jenn Riley, Casey Mullin, C.C., Berry, A.: Definition of a frbr-based metadata
model for the indiana university variations3 project. phase 2: Frbr group 2 and 3
entities and frad. Technical report, University of Indiana (2008)
20. Ayres, M.L.: Case studies in implementing functional require-
ments for bibliographic records [frbr]: Auslist and musicaus-
tralia. Australian Library Journal 54(1) (2004) Available at
http://www.alia.org.au/publishing/alj/54.1/full.text/ayres.html.
21. MusicAustralia: Musicaustralia web site available at
http://www.musicaustralia.org
22. Carlos A. Iglesias, Marta Sánchez, M.J.G.A.G., Gómez, E.: A multilingual a mul-
tilingual web-based educational system for professional musicians. In: Current De-
velopments in Technology-Assisted Education, Proceedings of Fourth International
Conference on Multimedia and Information and Communication Technologies in
Education, Sevilla, Spain (2006)
23. Riley, J., Mayer, C.A.: Ask a librarian: The role of librarians in the music infor-
mation retrieval community. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on
Music Information Retrieval, ISMIR06. (2006)
24. Riley, J.: The essence of information technology for library decision-makers. In:
FRBR
25. Buchanan, G.: Frbr: Enriching and integrating digital libraries. In: JCDL ’06. Pro-
ceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. (2006)
260–269
26. le Boeuf, P.: Frbr mailing list, list address frbr@bnf.fr
27. Giasson, F., Raimond, Y.: Music ontology specification. Available at
http://musicontology.com/ (2007)
28. Friedich, M., Kaye, R.: Musicbrainz metadata initiative 2.1. XML metadata format
29. IFLA Working Group on the Expression Entity : FRBR Chapter 3: Entities,
Proposed changes to the FRBR Text
30. Iglesias, C.A., Molina, D.: Variazioni musical application profile. Available at
http://www.variazioniproject.org/vmap (2009)
31. achel Heery, Patel, M.: Application profiles: mixing and matching metadata
schemas. Ariadne Electronic Journal (25) (September 2000)
32. Thomas Baker, Makx Dekkers, T.F., Heery, R.: Dublin core application
profile guidelines. Available at http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/profile-
guidelines/ (2005)
33. Nilsson, M., Baker, T., Johnston, P.: The singapore frame-
work for dublin core application profiles. Available at
http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/01/14/singapore-framework/
34. metadata using the DC-Text format, E.D.C.: Pete johnston. Available at
http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-text/ (2007)
35. Trust, J.P.G.: Getty thesaurus for geographical name web site. Available at
http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting research/vocabularies/tgn
36. Jenkins, K.: Thesaurus of musical instruments. Available at
http://alteriseculo.com/instruments/. (2003)
37. Bricklye, D., Miller, L.: Foaf vocabulary specification 0.91, namespace document
2, openid edition. Available at http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/ (November 2007)
38. Alfresco: Alfresco web page. Available at http://www.alfresco.com
39. project, V.: Variazioni content enrichment portal. Available at
http://cep.variazioniproject.org
40. Chaudhri, T.: Assessing frbr in dublin core application pro-
files. Ariadne Electronic Magazie (58) (jan 2009) Available at
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue58/chaudhri/.
41. Sarah L. Shreeves, J.R., Milewicz, L.: Moving towards share-
able metadata. First Monday 11(8) (August 2006) Available at
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11 8/shreeves/index.html#s2.
42. Marieke Guy, A.P., Day, M.: Improving the quality of metadata in eprint archives.
Ariadne (38) (January 2004) Available at http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue38/guy/.