臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

數位典藏與數位學習國家型科技計畫將國家級的重要典藏文物數位化，累積已產出超過300萬筆詮釋資料記錄，但隨著資料量日趨龐大，使用者變得難以迅速檢索與使用這些資訊，管理者亦難以確實掌握所擁有的整體資源。為解決此困擾，本研究試圖建立臺灣數位典藏資源合集層次描述雛型，以為未來建立數位典藏資源合集層次描述之基礎，並將此建置經驗提供國內作為參考。
本研究以國立故宮博物院、國立自然科學博物館、國立臺灣大學與國史館此四機構下所產出之數位化資源為研究範圍，使用都柏林核心集資源合集應用綱要（Dublin Core Collection Application Profile, DCCAP）作為描述標準。訪談34位研究人員與數位典藏計畫執行人員，整理出73個資源合集，依其情況與藏品特性，修改DCCAP描述標準，並建立資源合集層次描述。最後利用層面分類的方式呈現於資訊系統中，改善使用者進行資源的瀏覽和利用。經分析整理後，本研究有以下幾項發現：
一、 資源合集層次描述的建立可歸納為五個階段。首先須依據目的，確定資源合集範圍集描述深度；再來按照目的、標準聲譽、採用計畫、相容性、簡易性、軟體工具、與維護情形七種面向選擇合適的描述標準；接著利用訪談等方式瞭解資源合集內涵，建立資源合集層次詮釋資料；設計呈現介面，將產出成果加以組織呈現，改善資源的瀏覽使用；最後進行系統評估，瞭解資源合集層次描述之成效。
二、 數位典藏資源合集層次描述具資源合集異質性極高、資源合集層次描述不斷變動、資源合集層次描述的建立需要高度的學科知識、機構角色也會影響描述品質、文化類資源合集層次描述之品質優於自然類資源合集等現象。
最後建議由數位典藏執行單位推動完成數位典藏資源合集層次描述之建立。最好由兼具學科背景與資訊組織知識者撰寫詮釋資料，以物性為主進行描述，並維持單件藏品的獨特性與重要性。可依目的修訂描述標準，以平實用語取代專業術語，增近使用者理解。同時建議善用層面分類組合功能，建立資源合集與單件的連結，改良系統功能。未來可進行使用者研究，評估運作成效，或進一步探討自然與人文領域對資源合集層次詮釋資料適用性之異同。

Taiwan e-Learning and Digital Archives Program (TELDAP) is dedicated to digitizing Taiwan’s cultural heritages. So far, TELDAP had already comprised of a remarkable digital collection of over 3,000,000 metadata. With the ever increasing amount of data, users are starting to encounter difficulties while searching for and using information contained. Administrators also are starting to find it difficult to truly manage the overwhelming amount of data. Aiming at solving such problems, this study tries to build a collection-level-description (CLD) for Taiwan’s Digital Archives. It is hoped that this study can become the foundation for future Digital Archives Collection Level Description building and serve as a reference for other databases.
The scope of the study covers digital archives produced by National Palace Museum, National Museum of Natural Science, National Taiwan University and Academia Historica. 34 researchers and program implementation staffs are interviewed to identify 73 collections using Dublin Core Collection Application Profile (DCCAP), as the CLD schema. According to specific conditions and special features of the collections, the DCCAP is modified to create an applicable CLD. Lastly, faceted classification is adopted by the information system for CLD presentation to improve the users’ experiences in browsing and using of the resources. With detailed analysis, findings of the study are as follows:
1. CLD’s creation is a five-stage process. The profundity of collections’ scope description is first identified. Then, an appropriate CLD schema is selected according to its fitness for purpose, reputation, existing experience, compatibility, easiness, tools used and sustainability. Interviews are later held to obtain a better understanding of the collections and create a collection-level metadata. The user interface is designed after the above stage to present the outcomes in a systematic fashion for better resource browsing and using. Finally, a system evaluation is conducted to identify CLD’s performance.
2. Digital archives CLD’s characteristics include: high heterogeneity of collections, CLD changes constantly, high level of academic knowledge needed for CLD creation, description quality is influenced by resource producing institutions, CLD for cultural artifacts enjoys a better quality than for science-themed collections, etc.
The study suggests that the creation of TELDAP CLD is carried out by the TELDAP execution organization. Metadata should be produced by information bearing personnel with an academic background from the knowledge organization. Collections are described according to their property, and special attention is paid to detailing the unique and important qualities of items in the collection. CLD schema can be modified according to its purpose. For example, the use of technical terms is minimized to enhance users’ understanding of the information. Faceted classification is another point of focus that the study proposes. It can create a relation between collections and individual items while at the same time improve the system’s function. In the future, user experience research shall be conducted to evaluate the operational performance and further explore the differences between its applicability on the collection-level metadata of nature and cultural domains.

中文摘要 i
Abstract iii
目 次 v
圖 次 vii
表 次 viii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 研究問題 4
第四節 研究範圍與限制 5
第五節 名詞解釋 6
第二章 文獻探討 8
第一節 資源合集層次描述之意涵 8
第二節 資源合集層次描述的發展 13
第三節 資源合集層次描述主要標準 17
第四節 歐美地區資源合集層次描述應用情況 32
第五節 資源合集層次描述建置步驟 48
第三章 研究設計與實施 51
第一節 研究方法 51
第二節 研究對象及研究工具 55
第三節 研究步驟與實施 59
第四章 研究結果 69
第一節 機構訪談資料分析 69
第二節 資源合集層次描述標準之修訂 97
第三節 數位典藏資源合集層次描述之呈現 117
第五章 結論與建議 123
第一節 結論 124
第二節 建議 133
第三節 未來研究建議 136
參考文獻 137
附錄一 單件格式參考著錄值：MIME TYPE列表 144

中研院Metadata工作小組（民88）。Metadata工作小組第一階段報告：以平埔族計畫實作為例。
吳政叡（民87）。都柏林核心集與元資料系統。台北市：漢美。
陳和琴（民 90）。Metadata 與數位典藏之探討。大學圖書館，5(2)，1-10。
陳和琴、張怡婷（民93）。資源合集層次描述之研探。國家圖書館館刊，93（2），27-47。
陳雪華（民96）。臺灣南島語語料庫詮釋資料發展之研究。在台東大學華語文學系編，原住民語言發展論叢理論與實務（頁43-62）。臺北市：原民會。
張怡婷（民94）。資源合集層次詮釋資料之比較研究。淡江大學資訊與圖書館學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北縣。
蔡勇美（民96）。社會學硏究方法。臺北市：唐山。
薛理桂（民93）。檔案學導論。台北市：漢美圖書。
蕭伯瑜（民95）。全集層次詮釋資料之應用研究：以EAD為例。臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
數位典藏與數位學習國家型科技計劃（民98）。數位典藏國家型科技計畫。檢索於2009/5/10，取自：http://wiki.teldap.tw/index.php/數位典藏國家型科技計畫#.E7.B7.A3.E8.B5.B7
Adkisson, H. P. (2005). Use of faceted classification. Retrieved December 25,2009, from http://www.webdesignpractices.com/navigation/facets.html
Anderson, J. D. (2003). Organization of knowledge. In J. Feather & P. Sturges (Ed.), International encyclopedia of information and library science. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, pp.471-490.
Brack, E. V., Palmer, D., Robinson, B. (2000). Collection Level Description-the Riding and Agora Experience. D-Lib Magazine, 6(9).
CD Focus. (2001). Collection Description Focus. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from UKOLN Web site: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/cd-focus/
CD Focus. (2005). CLD Online Tutorial. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from UKOLN Web site: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/cd-focus/cdfocus-tutorial/
Chapman, A. (2004). Collection-level Description: joining up the domains. Journal of the Society of Archivists, 25(2), 149-155.
Chapman, A. (2006). Tapping into collections. MLA West Midlands ICT Network Day Collection descriptions and cultural portals, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/cd-focus/mla-WM-2006-july/mal-WM-2006-07-25.ppt
Chapman, A., Kingsley, N., & Dempsey, L. (1999). Full Disclosure: Releasing the value of library and archive collections. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/lic/fulldisclosure/
Curral, J., Moss, M., & Stuart, S. (2005). What is a collection? Archivaria, 58, 131-146.
DCMI Collection Description Community. (2008). DCMI Collection Description Community. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from DCMI Web site: http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/
Denton, W. (2003). How to make a faceted classification and put it on the Web? Retrieved December 25, 2009, from http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html
Dublin Core Collection Description Task Group. (2007). Dublin Core Collections Application Profile. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from DCMI Web site: http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/collection-application-profile/2007-03-09
Dunn, H. (2000). Collection Level Description- the Museum Perspective. D-Lib Magazine, 6(9).
Dunsire, G. (2004). Collection-level descriptions in the Scottish Collections Network (SCONE). Retrieved May 10, 2009, from SCONE Web site: http://ccinterop.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/documents/SCONECLDGuide.pdf
Freund, L., & Butterworth, R. (2008). Tagging for use: an analysis of use-centred resource description. In P. Borlund, (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international symposium on Information interaction in context (pp.6-10). London: ACM.
Gill, T. (2004). Building semantic bridges between museums, libraries and archives: the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model. First Monday. [online]. 3 May, 9(5). Retrieved May 10, 2009, from http://firstmonday.org/
Heaney, M. (2000). An Analytical Model of Collections and their Catalogues. 3rd issue, rev. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from UKOLN Web site: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/rslp/model/amccv31.pdf
Heaney, M. (2005). Users and Information Resources: An Extension of the Analytical Model of Collections and their Catalogues into Usage and Transactions. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from UKOLN Web site: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/cd-focus/model-ext/CD2-principles-v2-2.pdf
Hodson, T. (2006). Self Description: Collection Description Remodelled as a Microformat. (Master’s Dissertation, Loughborough University, 2006). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 5.
IMLS DCC. (2009). IMLS Digital Collections and Conten. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from IMLS Web site: http://imlsdcc.grainger.uiuc.edu
IMLS DCC. (2009). IMLS Digital Collections and Content: About the Project. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from IMLS Web site: http://imlsdcc.grainger.uiuc.edu/about.asp
Johnston, P., & Robinson, B. (2002). Collections and Collection Description. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from UKOLN, CD Focus Web site: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/cd-focus/briefings/bp1/bp1.pdf
Johnston, P. (2006). MICHAEL-EU Dublin Core Application Profile. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from MICHAEL Web site: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/michael/michael-eu/dcap/
Lagoze, C. et al. (2006). Metadata aggregation and automated digital libraries: A retrospective on the NSDL experience. In proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. ACM Press, New York.
Lourdi, I., Papatheodorou, C., & Nikolaidou, M. (2007). A multi-lyaer metadata schema for digital folklore collections. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 197-213.
Macgregor, G.(2003). Collection-level description: metadata of the future?. Library Review, 52(6), 247-250.
MICHAEL. (2009). Multilingual Inventory of Cultural Heritage in Europe. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from MICHAEL Web site:http://www.michael-culture.org/
Palmer, C. (2004). Thematic research collections. In S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, & J. Unsworth (Eds.). Companion to Digital Humanities. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.348-365.
Palmer, C., Zavalina, O., & Mustafoff, M. (2007). Trends in Metadata Practices: A Longitudinal Study of Collection Federation Metadata. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp.386-395)
Palmer, C., & Jackson, A. (2009). IMLS DCC Interim Performance Report 3. (Grant LG-06-07-0020). Retrieved May 10, 2009, from IMLS Web site: http://imlsdcc.grainger.uiuc.edu/docs/interimReport0409.pdf
Powell, A. (1999a). Simple Collection Description. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from UKOLN Web site: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/cld/simple/
Powell, A. (1999b). Collection Level Description: a review of existing practice. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from UKOLN Web site: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/cld/study/rtf/study.rtf
Powell, A., Heaney, M., & Dempsey, L. (2000). RSLP Collection Description. D-Lib Magazine,6(9). Retrieved May 15, 2009, from the World Wide Web:http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september00/powell/09powell.html
Renear, A. H., Urban, R. J., Wickett, K. M., Palmer, C. L., & Dubin, D. (2008). Sustaining Collection Value: Managing Collection/Item Metadata Relationship. In Proceedings of DH2008.
RSLP. (2000). RSLP Collection Description Collection Description Schema. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from UKOLN Web site: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/rslp/
SCONE. (2002). About SCONE: Project Overview. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from SCONE Web site: http://scone.strath.ac.uk/About/overview.cfm
Shreeves, S. L., & Jackson, A. S. (2008). IMLS DCC Collection Description Metadata Schema-Summary. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from IMLS Web site: http://imlsdcc.grainger.uiuc.edu/CDschema_overview.asp
UKOLN. (2009). Good Practice Guide for Developers of Cultural Heritage Web Services. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/interop-focus/gpg/print-all/
VADS. (2009). Creating Digital Resources for the Visual Arts: Standards and Good Practice. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from http://vads.ahds.ac.uk/guides/creating_guide/sect42.html
Zavalina, O. L., Palmer, C. L., Jackson, A. S., & Han, M. J. (2008). Evaluating Description Richness in Collection-Level Metadata. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(4), 263-292.
Zeng, M. L.. (1999). Metadata elements for object description and representation: A case report from a digitized historical fashion collection project. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(13), 1193-1208.