Standards‎ > ‎

Metadata

ETD-MS v1.1: an Interoperability Metadata Standard for Electronic Theses and Dissertations

version 1.1

http://www.ndltd.org/standards/metadata/etd-ms-v1.1.html

Editors

Thom Hickey

Ana Pavani

Hussein Suleman


Outline

1. Introduction

2. Authorities

3. Metadata Elements

3.1 dc.title
3.2 dc.creator
3.3 dc.subject
3.4 dc.description
3.5 dc.publisher
3.6 dc.contributor
3.7 dc.date
3.8 dc.type
3.9 dc.format
3.10 dc.identifier
3.11 dc.language
3.12 dc.coverage
3.13 dc.rights
3.14 thesis.degree

4. Global Qualifiers

5. Encodings and Crosswalks

5.1 "Vanilla" XML Encoding
5.1.1 Sample Record

5.2 MARC-21 Crosswalk
5.2.1 Sample Record

6. History

7. Contributors


1.Introduction

This document defines a standard set of metadata elements used to describe an electronic thesis or dissertation.

Institutions dealing with electronic theses and dissertations have all developed their own standards or adapted existing metadata standards. These metadata standards all attempt to describe the author, the work, and the context in which the work was produced in a way that will be useful to the researcher as well as the librarians and/or technical staff maintaining the work in its electronic form.

This document is not a replacement for the metadata schemes developed for a particular university or environment. Rather, this document should be used as a guideline to develop a faithful cross-walk between local metadata standards and a single standard used for sharing information about ETDs.


2. Authorities

Each reference to an individual or institution in any field should contain a string representing the name of the individual or institution as it appears in the work. The reference may also contain a URI which points to an authoritative record for that individual or institution.


3. Metadata Elements

The following is a description of the common Dublin Core metadata elements (and a new element specifically for theses). Guidelines are given as to which information related to an ETD belongs in each element.

If a more general element is described as mandatory, it should be specified fully, even if qualified elements are also specified. If a more general element is repeatable, it should be assumed that sub-elements are also repeatable. If an element contains free text, it must be repeatable to allow for ETDs that provide metadata in more than one language.


3.1 dc.title

Element Description Notes
dc.title A name given to the resource. In the case of theses and dissertations, this is the title of the work as it appears on the title page or equivalent. Mandatory
Repeatable
dc.title.alternative alternative title of the thesis or dissertation Optional,
Repeatable

3.2 dc.creator

Element Description Notes
dc.creator An entity primarily responsible for making the content of the resource. In the case of theses or dissertations, this field is appropriate for the author(s) of the work. Like other names and institutions, this field should be entered in free text form as it appears on the title page or equivalent, with a link to to an authority record if available. See "Authority" section for more information. Mandatory,
Repeatable

3.3 dc.subject

Element Description Notes
dc.subject The topic of the content of the resource. In the case of theses and dissertations, keywords or subjects listed on the title page can be entered as free text. The scheme qualifier should be used to indicate a controlled vocabulary. See Global Qualifiers for more information. Mandatory,
Repeatable

3.4 dc.description

Element Description Notes
dc.description An account of the content of the resource. In the case of theses and disserations, this is the full text of the abstract. Note: dc.description is interchangeable with the qualified element dc.description.abstract. Optional,
Repeatable
dc.description.abstract The full text of the abstract. Optional,
Repeatable
dc.description.note Additional information regarding the thesis or dissertation. Example: acceptance note of the department Optional,
Repeatable
dc.description.release Description of the version of the work. Should only be used for errata, etc.. Optional,
Repeatable

3.5 dc.publisher

Element Description Notes
dc.publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available. This is typically the group most directly responsible for digitizing and/or archiving the work. The publisher may or may not be exactly the same as thesis.degree.grantor. Like other names and institutions, this field should be entered in free text form as it appears on the title page or equivalent, with a link to to an authority record if available. See "Authority" section for more information. Optional,
Repeatable
dc.publisher.country
The country the thesis was originally published in.


3.6 dc.contributor

Element Description Notes
dc.contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the content of the resource. Typical use would be for co-authors of parts of the work as well as advisors or committee members. Co-authors of the entire work would be more appropriate for the dc.creator field. Optional,
Repeatable
dc.contributor.role Role the person played in the creation or approval of the work. Examples: advisor, committee member, chair, co-chair, referree, juror. Optional

3.7 dc.date

Element Description Notes
dc.date A date associated with an event in the life cycle of the resource. In the case of theses and dissertations, this should be the date that appears on the title page or equivalent of the work. Should be recorded as defined in ISO 8601 and the profile recommended for implementing ISO 8601 dates in Dublin Core. Mandatory

3.8 dc.type

Element Description Notes
dc.type The nature or genre of the content of a resource. This field is used to distinguish the resource from works in other genres and to identify the types of content included in the resource. The string "Electronic Thesis or Dissertation" is recommended as one of the repeatable values for this element. In addition, specify types of content using the standard vocabulary found at: http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-type-vocabulary/. Degree and Education Level are now handled by the thesis.degree field. Mandatory
Repeatable

3.9 dc.format

Element Description Notes
dc.format The physical or digital manifestation of the resource. In the case of an electronic thesis or dissertation, this should contain a list of the electronic format(s) in which the work is stored and/or delivered. Use the standard MIME type whenever possible (for a list of "registered" MIME types, visit ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/media-types). List as "unknown" if no format information is available, omit if the work is not available in electronic form. Optional,
Repeatable

3.10 dc.identifier

Element Description Notes
dc.identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context. This can and should be used to provide a URI where the work can be viewed or downloaded. Persistent URNs such as PURLs (http://purl.org/) or Handles (http://handle.net/) are recommended. Mandatory,
Repeatable

3.11 dc.language

Element Description Notes
dc.language A language of the intellectual content of the resource. This should be the primary language in which the work is recorded. Portions of the larger work that appear in other languages should use the lang qualifier. See Global Qualifiers. Language names themselves should be recorded using ISO 639-2 (or RFC 1766). If the language is not specified, it is assumed to be english (en). Optional,
Repeatable

3.12 dc.coverage

Element Description Notes
dc.coverage The extent or scope of the content of the resource. This element should be used for time periods or spatial regions. For any other type of "coverage", use dc.subject. Optional,
Repeatable

3.13 dc.rights

Element Description Notes
dc.rights Information about rights held in and over the resource. Typically, this describes the conditions under which the work may be distributed, reproduced, etc., how these conditions may change over time, and whom to contact regarding the copyright of the work.

Three levels are valid:

  • 0 Not publicly accessible
  • 1 Limited public access
  • 2 Publicly accessible

Optional,
Repeatable

3.14 thesis.degree

Element Description Notes
thesis.degree.name Name of the degree associated with the work as it appears within the work. (example: Masters in Operations Research) Optional,
Repeatable
thesis.degree.level Level of education associated with the document.

Three levels are valid:

  • 0 Undergraduate (pre-masters)
  • 1 Masters (pre-doctoral)
  • 2 Doctoral (includes post-doctoral)
Optional,
Repeatable
thesis.degree.discipline Area of study of the intellectual content of the document. Usually, this will be the name of a program or department. Optional,
Repeatable
thesis.degree.grantor Institution granting the degree associated with the work. Like other names and institutions, this field should be entered in free text form as it appears on the title page or equivalent, with a link to to an authority record if available. See "Authority" section for more information. Optional,
Repeatable

4. Global Qualifiers

In addition to the attributes specified for various elements, there are also a handful of global attributes that can be specified for any element.

  1. lang
    An indication of the language in which the value of a field is written. This is entirely separate from the dc.language element, which indicates the primary language of the work itself.
  2. translated
    An empty element that indicates that the value of a field is a translation provided by someone other than the author. For translations provided by the author, simply indicate the language of the field itself (using the "lang" attribute).
  3. scheme
    Description of the vocabulary or scheme used to determine the subject(s)

5. Encodings and Crosswalks

The abstract set of elements defined in this document can be encoded in a variety of standard formats. Two of particular interest to the digital library community are the MARC standard common to library catalog systems and the XML data markup language. The ETD-MS group provides a "Vanilla" encoding of the standard set into XML and a recommended crosswalk into MARC-21. The XML encoding follows Dublin Core standards everywhere that the abstract metadata set follows Dublin Core elements. The MARC-21 recommendations follow AACR-2 policies and procedures for common bibliographic elements like title and publisher, with additions for elements particular to electronic theses and dissertations. A third encoding of the element set, into RDF, is envisioned. As this version goes public, that encoding has not yet been completed.

5.1 "Vanilla" XML Encoding

In this encoding, each of the fields and subfields in the ETD-MS standard corresponds directly to an XML element with that tag name. The XML Schema used for this encoding can be found at: http://www.ndltd.org/standards/metadata/etdms/1.1/etdms11.xsd.

5.1.1 Sample Record

The following is the metadata for an ETD from the Virginia Tech ETD collection presented in the "Vanilla" XML Encoding of the ETD-MS standard.

<thesis xmlns="http://www.ndltd.org/standards/metadata/etdms/1.1/"
        xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
 xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.ndltd.org/standards/metadata/etdms/1.1/ 
 http://www.ndltd.org/standards/metadata/etdms/1.1/etdms11.xsd 
 http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
 http://www.ndltd.org/standards/metadata/etdms/1.1/etdmsdc.xsd
 http://purl.org/dc/terms/
 http://www.ndltd.org/standards/metadata/etdms/1.1/etdmsdcterms.xsd"
>

  <dc:title xml:lang="en">Conceptual Development and Empirical Testing of an Outdoor 
  Recreation Experience Model: The Recreation Experience Matrix (REM)</dc:title>
  <dcterms:alternative>A matrix for recreating experience</dcterms:alternative>

  <dc:creator>Walker, Gordon James</dc:creator>

  <dc:subject>outdoor recreation</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>recreation experience preference scales</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>recreation experience matrix</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>recreation opportunity spectrum</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject scheme="DCC">796.5</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject scheme="LCSH">GV 191.2-200.66</dc:subject>

  <dc:description role="abstract" xml:lang="en">This dissertation examines four issues, including:
  (a) whether outdoor recreation experiences not included in the
  Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scales exist; (b) whether
  these experiences can be categorized using a framework called the
  Recreation Experience Matrix (REM); (c) how well the Recreation
  Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) variables of activity, setting, and
  expertise explain the types of experiences outdoor recreationists
  receive; and (d) how well two new variables--primary mode and
  mode dependence--explain the types of experiences outdoor
  recreationists receive. In order to address these issues, an
  on-site questionnaire was distributed at Mount Rogers National
  Recreation Area in Virginia during October and November, 1995. A
  total of 410 people completed this questionnaire. Of these, 336
  provided useable addresses for a follow-up mail-out
  questionnaire, with 169 (50.3%) actually returning it. After
  performing a variety of statistical analyses, it was found that:
  (a) some outdoor recreationists did report having non-REP
  experiences involving identity, cognition, absorption, and
  self-concept; (b) indirect support does exist for classifying
  outdoor recreation experiences using the REM framework; and (c)
  the ROS variables of activity, setting, and expertise, do explain
  some outdoor recreation experiences, as do the new variables of
  primary mode and mode dependence.</dc:description>

  <dc:publisher country="USA">Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University</dc:publisher>

  <dc:contributor role="committee_member">Daniel R. Williams</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor role="committee_member">K. Jill Kiecolt</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor role="committee_member">Bradley R. Hertel</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor role="chair">Joseph W. Roggenbuck</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor role="chair">R. Bruce Hull</dc:contributor>

  <dc:date>1997-03-31</dc:date>

  <dc:type>Electronic Thesis or Dissertation</dc:type>

  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>

  <dc:identifier>http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-3345131939761081/</dc:identifier>

  <dc:language>en</dc:language>

  <dc:rights>2</dc:rights>

  <degree>
    <name>PHD</name>

    <level>2</level>

    <discipline xml:lang="en-us">Forestry</discipline>

    <grantor>Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University</grantor>

  </degree>
</thesis>

5.2 MARC-21 Crosswalk

The question of encoding the abstract metadata set ETD-MS in MARC arises from a number of directions.

Those NDLTD member institutions that prefer to store their records in one of the MARC standard formats (e.g., MARC-21 or UNIMARC) will benefit from a standard "location" within the record for each element in ETD-MS.

Communications between institutions storing ETD metadata in different formats will also benefit from this standard. Using the "crosswalk" below, a MARC-based institution can harvest data in XML-encoded ETD-MS, translating it automatically to MARC data, and can export MARC data that can itself be translated into XML-encoded ETD-MS for use at a more XML-oriented site.

Finally, NDLTD members who function as OAI data providers can now export both XML-encoded ETD-MS and OAI-standard XML-encoded MARC data, irrespective of how they store their ETD data locally.

Crosswalk Specification

 

ETD-MS Element MARC-21 field & subfield Notes
dc.title 245a
dc.title.alternative 246 Both title.alternative and MARC 246 are used for truly divergent titles. Mere translations are dealt with differently.
dc.title translated 242 Translations (neither alternative nor parallel titles) should be encoded in 242 fields. Parallel titles (as when an ETD is submitted in both English and German) are encoded in XML ETD-MS using two <title> elements with different XML:LANG qualifiers, and in MARC-21 using a single 245a subfield with the format <primary language title> = <secondary language title>.
dc.creator 100a "Creator" is always a person in ETD-MS, although not in general Dublin Core; thus it requires a x00 field, in this case 100.
dc.subject 653a Since \a subfields are not generally repeatable in 6xx fields, we recommend that separate <subject> tags be mapped to & from separate 653 fields.
dc.description.abstract 520a
dc.description.note Any 5xx field not otherwise used, e.g., 504
dc.description.release

dc.publisher 260a+b Publisher name maps to 260b. 260a is place of publication; this may be found in the element itself or in the linked authority record.
dc.contributor 720a In ETD-MS, "contributor" is always some part of the guiding or examining committee. A "complete" ETD-MS 720 field includes both the person's name (in the \a subfield) and his or her role in the process (in the \e subfield).
dc.contributor.role 720e (see note above)
dc.date 008 positions 7-10 The year portion of the date only should appear as decimal digits in positions 7-10 of the 008 fixed field. Positions 11-14 should (normally) be filled with blank spaces, and position 6 should have the value 's'. In the case where a second date (e.g., publication date where the first is date of the defense, or submission date where the first is date degree awarded) positions 11-14 may be used (in these cases position 6 should be 't' or 'p'). Dates may also be entered in 260c, although current best practices for MARC-21 recommend that dates in 260c not be encoded (e.g. in ISO-8601) but be written for human consumption.
dc.type leader 6&7;
655
Electronic theses and dissertations are peculiar in that they are at once text monographs and machine-readable files. (Some ETDs may in fact not be text objects, but all are bound to be monographs.) As text objects, they should have leader position 6 set to 'a' and as monographs, position 7 set to 'm'. Multimedia ETD's may have different values in position 6 (including as a default 'm', software), but all should have an 'm' in 7. As well as these leader values, ETD's may also include the text "Electronic Thesis or Dissertation" in the 655a field.
dc.format 856q
dc.identifier 856u This assignment is based on the (common but not required) use of URIs (of the theses or dissertations themselves, for instance, or of their "electronic title pages") as identifiers. Actual identification numbers such as those used in the OAI protocol to name each item should map to the 035a or 035z subfield.
dc.language 008 positions 35-37;
[546]
MARC-21 makes use of its own standard abbreviations for languages, different from the two-letter ISO-639 codes recommended by ETD-MS or even the three-letter RFC 1766 standard used alternately by Dublin Core. Some translation must therefore be used in filling 008 positions 35-37. Field 546, in further contrast, requires a human-readable "note." Accordingly, we have attached an appendix to this document mapping ISO-639 codes to MARC-21 codes and human-readable language names.
dc.coverage 651 or
690
"DC Coverage" fields may contain either (some description of) geographic or temporal extents or both. There is no single equivalent among MARC fields. Coverage is often encoded in general subject (6xx) fields using the \y and \z modifying subfields. Alternatively, when geographic coverage descriptions can be recognized they can be mapped directly to 651a subfields. Without a corresponding temporal subject field, temporal coverage elements must be mapped to a general-purpose subject field such as a 690.
dc.rights 540
thesis.degree.name 502a AACR-2 guidelines for cataloging theses and dissertations require that the cataloger generate a 502 field in the form: <name> (<level>) -- <grantor>,<date>.
We recommend that as much as possible of this string be synthesized from the ETD-MS thesis.degree element, and when such a string is recognized in the 502 field of an existing MARC record, that it be considered to encode (most of) a thesis.degree element.
thesis.degree.level 502a (see note in thesis.degree.name)
thesis.degree.discipline 710b Unable to find a MARC field that encodes the discipline of a cataloged work, we have fallen back on the common practice of conflating the discipline with the name of the granting department. This is encoded by putting the discipline name in the last \b subfield of the 710 corresponding to the grantor (see note below).
thesis.degree.grantor 502a;
710ab
In addition to the AACR-2 procedure for thesis notes mentioned above, the degree grantor may be considered an institutional contributor to the work. This motivates generating an added entry (710) for the granting institution. The grantor may be considered to be the college or university (the name of which should appear in the 710a subfield) or it may be a subdivision of the learning institution, in which case best practice is to generate sucessive b subfields for each division following standard MARC pracices for x10 fields. In any case, the final \b subfield should map the thesis.degree.discipline element.

 

This covers all the elements defined in the ETD-MS standard. Any MARC record (or incomplete MARC record, or "MARC-like object") containing values for all the fields above counts as a valid ETD-MS record. To count as a valid MARC record it must contain additional data (for instance, a complete leader) and to count as a valid record under AACR-2 still more data (for instance, a complete 008 field). It is not our intention to limit MARC-encoded ETD-MS records to the data in the table above. We expect MARC-ETD-MS records produced by NDLTD member institutions to reflect the cataloging policies and procedures of those institutions.

Accordingly, institutions that create ETD-MS compliant MARC records have several alternatives for sharing those records:

  • They may share the MARC records as they are held, either as streams of data in MARC Communications Format or encoded as XML using the OAI XML MARC encoding (or equivalent).
  • They may share just the parts of their records corresponding to the ETD-MS standard metadata set, either as MARC-like objects or using the XML encoding of ETD-MS.
  • They may share the records as Dublin Core, using the Library of Congress MARC / Dublin Core crosswalk or similar tool. Just as DC and ETD-MS overlap to a great extent, so the crosswalk defined above overlaps significantly with the crosswalks defined by LoC.

 

5.2.1 Sample Record

The following is the metadata for an ETD from the Virginia Tech ETD collection presented in the MARC XML Encoding of the Open Archives Initiative, with semantics conforming to the ETD-MS MARC Crosswalk.

<oai_marc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/1.1/oai_marc"

 xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/1.1/oai_marc
 http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/1.1/oai_marc.xsd" status="n" type="t"
 level="m" encLvl="u" catForm="u">

   <fixfield id="008">
   "    s1997    vau|    sm    00| 0|eng d"
   </fixfield>
   <varfield i1=" " i2=" " id="035">

      <subfield label="a">
      (VPI) etd-3345131939761081
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1="1" i2=" " id="100">

      <subfield label="a">
      Walker, Gordon James
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1="0" i2="0" id="245">

      <subfield label="a">
      Conceptual Development and Empirical Testing of an Outdoor Recreation
      Experience Model: The Recreation Experience Matrix (REM)
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1=" " i2=" " id="256">

      <subfield label="a">
      Computer data - 4 files(s)
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1=" " i2=" " id="260">

      <subfield label="a">
      Blacksburg, Va.
      </subfield>
      <subfield label="b">
      University Libraries, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
      University
      </subfield>
      <subfield label="c">

      1997
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1=" " i2=" " id="502">

      <subfield label="a">
      Thesis (PHD)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 
      1997-03-31
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1=" " i2=" " id="504">

      <subfield label="a">
      Includes bibliographical references.
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1="3" i2=" " id="520">

      <subfield label="a">
       This dissertation examines four issues, including: (a) whether
       outdoor recreation experiences not included in the Recreation
       Experience Preference (REP) scales exist; (b) whether these
       experiences can be categorized using a framework called the
       Recreation Experience Matrix (REM); (c) how well the Recreation
       Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) variables of activity, setting, and
       expertise explain the types of experiences outdoor recreationists
       receive; and (d) how well two new variables--primary mode and mode
       dependence--explain the types of experiences outdoor recreationists
       receive. In order to address these issues, an on-site questionnaire
       was distributed at Mount Rogers National Recreation Area in Virginia
       during October and November, 1995. A total of 410 people completed
       this questionnaire. Of these, 336 provided useable addresses for a
       follow-up mail-out questionnaire, with 169 (50.3%) actually returning
       it. After performing a variety of statistical analyses, it was found
       that: (a) some outdoor recreationists did report having non-REP
       experiences involving identity, cognition, absorption, and
       self-concept; (b) indirect support does exist for classifying outdoor
       recreation experiences using the REM framework; and (c) the ROS
       variables of activity, setting, and expertise, do explain some
       outdoor recreation experiences, as do the new variables of primary
       mode and mode dependence.
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1=" " i2=" " id="538">

      <subfield label="a">
      System requirements: PC, World Wide Web Browser and PDF reader
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1=" " i2=" " id="538">

      <subfield label="a">
      Available electronically via Internet
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1=" " i2=" " id="653">

      <subfield label="a">
      outdoor recreation
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1=" " i2=" " id="653">

      <subfield label="a">
      recreation experience preference scales
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1=" " i2=" " id="653">

      <subfield label="a">
      recreation experience matrix
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1=" " i2=" " id="653">

      <subfield label="a">
      recreation opportunity spectrum
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1="2" i2=" " id="710">

      <subfield label="a">
      Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
      </subfield>
      <subfield label="b">
      Forestry
      </subfield>
   </varfield>

   <varfield i1="1" i2=" " id="720">
      <subfield label="a">
      Daniel R. Williams
      </subfield>

      <subfield label="e">
      Committee Member
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1="1" i2=" " id="720">

      <subfield label="a">
      K. Jill Kiecolt
      </subfield>
      <subfield label="e">
      Committee Member
      </subfield>
   </varfield>

   <varfield i1="1" i2=" " id="720">
      <subfield label="a">
      Bradley R. Hertel
      </subfield>

      <subfield label="e">
      Committee Member
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1="1" i2=" " id="720">

      <subfield label="a">
      Joseph W. Roggenbuck
      </subfield>
      <subfield label="e">
      Committee Co-Chair
      </subfield>
   </varfield>

   <varfield i1="1" i2=" " id="720">
      <subfield label="a">
      R. Bruce Hull
      </subfield>

      <subfield label="e">
      Committee Co-Chair
      </subfield>
   </varfield>
   <varfield i1="4" i2="0" id="856">

      <subfield label="z">
      2
      </subfield>
      <subfield label="u">
      http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-3345131939761081/
      </subfield>
   </varfield>

</oai_marc>

6. Document History

2010-08-19 XML Schemas and examples updated

2009-12-01 Draft version 1.1 of standard

This document was originally derived from the ETDMS v1.0 standard.

7. Contributors

Members of the NDLTD Standards and Services Committee contributed changes and additions to the revised standard.

The following people participated in a review of the standard at the NDLTD Board meeting at RGU in Aberdeen Scotland, 3 June 2008:
  • Ana Pavani
  • Hussein Suleman
  • Gail McMillan
  • Thomas Hickey


Subpages (1): etdms
Comments