Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept

01 Mar 2015
Groups audience: 

I am definitely in the it's a good idea camp on this question, and take it a little further to recommend some pretty specific best practices for how that minimum metadata should be encoded

Sent from my HTC on T-Mobile 4G LTE

----- Reply message -----
From: "Gary"
To: "Metadata IG"
Subject: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept
Date: Sat, Feb 28, 2015 8:19 AM

One of the issues discussed at a recent RDA outreach workshop was how people felt about "minimal metadata."
Some cautioned that it is potentially a bad idea, while a pluratity seemed in favor of it and could point to good outcomes using .
An example provided at the workshop was that of the Dataset Descriptions: HCLS Community Profile discussed by Michel Dumontier (Stanford). The idea here is to:

Develop a guidance note for reusing existing vocabularies to describe datasets with RDF - Mandatory, recommended, optional descriptors - Identifiers - Versioning - Attribution - Provenance - Content summarization * Recommend vocabulary-linked attributes and value sets
see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/notes/hcls-dataset/

We were perhaps more uniform on the idea expressed by NIST's Bob Hanisch that maximum MD causes a problem since people won't "use it."
--
Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/minimal-metadata-concept....
Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/44734

  • Keith Jeffery's picture

    Author: Keith Jeffery

    Date: 02 Mar, 2015

    Gary, all -

    I'm in the 'horses for courses' camp. If the end-user wants a human-readable list of datasets likely to be of use then minimal metadata (DC type) is fine. If the end-user wishes to autonomically have a homogeneous answer from multiple heterogeneous datasets then metadata with formal syntax and declared semantics (handling multilinguality also) is required. This is far from minimal (and to my knowledge only achieved in restricted domains but others may know better).

    The question arises 'is it worth providing more than minimal metadata'? If only minimal metadata is provided the end-user has to do a lot of manual work to achieve homogeneous access across heterogeneous datasets. If the provider inputs/stores more than minimal metadata then s/he has a lot of work (hopefully reduced by re-utilising existing metadata and utilising text/data mining of the data) but the end-user has an 'easy ride'.

    Best
    Keith

    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery

    Past President ERCIM www.ercim.eu (keith.jeffery@ercim.eu)
    Past President euroCRIS www.eurocris.org
    Past Vice President VLDB www.vldb.org
    Fellow (CITP, CEng) BCS www.bcs.org
    Co-chair RDA MIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/metadata-ig.html
    Co-chair RDA MSDWG https://rd-alliance.org/working-groups/metadata-standards-directory-work...
    Co-chair RDA DICIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/data-context-ig.html
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: steve.richard=azgs.az.gov@rda-groups.org [mailto:steve.richard=azgs.az.gov@rda-groups.org] On Behalf Of srichardUSGIN
    Sent: 01 March 2015 22:42
    To: Gary Berg-Cross; Metadata IG
    Subject: [rda-metadata-ig] Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept

    I am definitely in the it's a good idea camp on this question, and take it a little further to recommend some pretty specific best practices for how that minimum metadata should be encoded

    Sent from my HTC on T-Mobile 4G LTE

    ----- Reply message -----
    From: "Gary" >
    To: "Metadata IG" >
    Subject: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept
    Date: Sat, Feb 28, 2015 8:19 AM

    One of the issues discussed at a recent RDA outreach workshop was how people felt about "minimal metadata."
    Some cautioned that it is potentially a bad idea, while a pluratity seemed in favor of it and could point to good outcomes using .
    An example provided at the workshop was that of the Dataset Descriptions: HCLS Community Profile discussed by Michel Dumontier (Stanford). The idea here is to:

    Develop a guidance note for reusing existing vocabularies to describe datasets with RDF - Mandatory, recommended, optional descriptors - Identifiers - Versioning - Attribution - Provenance - Content summarization * Recommend vocabulary-linked attributes and value sets
    see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/notes/hcls-dataset/

    We were perhaps more uniform on the idea expressed by NIST's Bob Hanisch that maximum MD causes a problem since people won't "use it."
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/minimal-metadata-concept....
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/44734

  • Lars G. Svensson's picture

    Author: Lars G. Svensson

    Date: 02 Mar, 2015

    All,

    In order to ensure that the metadata is encoded in an interoperable fashion (e. g. for cross-repository search and federation) we could consider implementing an RDF application profile. A team around Antoine Isaac and Karen Coyle are currently working on this within the Dublin Core community [1].

    [1] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php?title=RDF-Application-Profiles

    Best,

    Lars

    *** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ***
    --
    Dr. Lars G. Svensson
    Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
    Informationsinfrastruktur und Bestanderhaltung
    Adickesallee 1
    D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
    Telefon: +49-69-1525-1752
    Telefax: +49-69-1525-1799
    mailto:l.svensson@dnb.de
    http://www.dnb.de

    From: keith.jeffery=keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk@rda-groups.org [mailto:keith.jeffery=keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk@rda-groups.org] On Behalf Of keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 10:49 AM
    To: srichardUSGIN; Gary Berg-Cross; Metadata IG
    Subject: Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept

    Gary, all –

    I’m in the ‘horses for courses’ camp. If the end-user wants a human-readable list of datasets likely to be of use then minimal metadata (DC type) is fine. If the end-user wishes to autonomically have a homogeneous answer from multiple heterogeneous datasets then metadata with formal syntax and declared semantics (handling multilinguality also) is required. This is far from minimal (and to my knowledge only achieved in restricted domains but others may know better).

    The question arises ‘is it worth providing more than minimal metadata’? If only minimal metadata is provided the end-user has to do a lot of manual work to achieve homogeneous access across heterogeneous datasets. If the provider inputs/stores more than minimal metadata then s/he has a lot of work (hopefully reduced by re-utilising existing metadata and utilising text/data mining of the data) but the end-user has an ‘easy ride’.

    Best
    Keith

    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery

    Past President ERCIM www.ercim.eu (keith.jeffery@ercim.eu)
    Past President euroCRIS www.eurocris.org
    Past Vice President VLDB www.vldb.org
    Fellow (CITP, CEng) BCS www.bcs.org
    Co-chair RDA MIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/metadata-ig.html
    Co-chair RDA MSDWG https://rd-alliance.org/working-groups/metadata-standards-directory-work...
    Co-chair RDA DICIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/data-context-ig.html
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: steve.richard=azgs.az.gov@rda-groups.org [mailto:steve.richard=azgs.az.gov@rda-groups.org] On Behalf Of srichardUSGIN
    Sent: 01 March 2015 22:42
    To: Gary Berg-Cross; Metadata IG
    Subject: [rda-metadata-ig] Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept

    I am definitely in the it's a good idea camp on this question, and take it a little further to recommend some pretty specific best practices for how that minimum metadata should be encoded

    Sent from my HTC on T-Mobile 4G LTE

    ----- Reply message -----
    From: "Gary" >
    To: "Metadata IG" >
    Subject: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept
    Date: Sat, Feb 28, 2015 8:19 AM

    One of the issues discussed at a recent RDA outreach workshop was how people felt about "minimal metadata."
    Some cautioned that it is potentially a bad idea, while a pluratity seemed in favor of it and could point to good outcomes using .
    An example provided at the workshop was that of the Dataset Descriptions: HCLS Community Profile discussed by Michel Dumontier (Stanford). The idea here is to:

    Develop a guidance note for reusing existing vocabularies to describe datasets with RDF – Mandatory, recommended, optional descriptors – Identifiers – Versioning – Attribution – Provenance – Content summarization • Recommend vocabulary-linked attributes and value sets
    see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/notes/hcls-dataset/

    We were perhaps more uniform on the idea expressed by NIST's Bob Hanisch that maximum MD causes a problem since people won't "use it."
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/minimal-metadata-concept....
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/44734

  • Jane Greenberg's picture

    Author: Jane Greenberg

    Date: 02 Mar, 2015

    Absolutely...! Thanks Lars for jumping in.

    Best wishes, jane

    From: l.svensson=dnb.de@rda-groups.org [mailto:l.svensson=dnb.de@rda-groups.org] On Behalf Of larsgsvensson
    Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 7:15 AM
    To: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk; srichardUSGIN; Gary Berg-Cross; Metadata IG
    Subject: Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept

    All,

    In order to ensure that the metadata is encoded in an interoperable fashion (e. g. for cross-repository search and federation) we could consider implementing an RDF application profile. A team around Antoine Isaac and Karen Coyle are currently working on this within the Dublin Core community [1].

    [1] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php?title=RDF-Application-Profiles

    Best,

    Lars

    *** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ***
    --
    Dr. Lars G. Svensson
    Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
    Informationsinfrastruktur und Bestanderhaltung
    Adickesallee 1
    D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
    Telefon: +49-69-1525-1752
    Telefax: +49-69-1525-1799
    mailto:l.svensson@dnb.de
    http://www.dnb.de

    From: keith.jeffery=keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk@rda-groups.org [mailto:keith.jeffery=keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk@rda-groups.org] On Behalf Of keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 10:49 AM
    To: srichardUSGIN; Gary Berg-Cross; Metadata IG
    Subject: Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept

    Gary, all -

    I'm in the 'horses for courses' camp. If the end-user wants a human-readable list of datasets likely to be of use then minimal metadata (DC type) is fine. If the end-user wishes to autonomically have a homogeneous answer from multiple heterogeneous datasets then metadata with formal syntax and declared semantics (handling multilinguality also) is required. This is far from minimal (and to my knowledge only achieved in restricted domains but others may know better).

    The question arises 'is it worth providing more than minimal metadata'? If only minimal metadata is provided the end-user has to do a lot of manual work to achieve homogeneous access across heterogeneous datasets. If the provider inputs/stores more than minimal metadata then s/he has a lot of work (hopefully reduced by re-utilising existing metadata and utilising text/data mining of the data) but the end-user has an 'easy ride'.

    Best
    Keith

    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery

    Past President ERCIM www.ercim.eu (keith.jeffery@ercim.eu)
    Past President euroCRIS www.eurocris.org
    Past Vice President VLDB www.vldb.org
    Fellow (CITP, CEng) BCS www.bcs.org
    Co-chair RDA MIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/metadata-ig.html
    Co-chair RDA MSDWG https://rd-alliance.org/working-groups/metadata-standards-directory-work...
    Co-chair RDA DICIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/data-context-ig.html
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: steve.richard=azgs.az.gov@rda-groups.org [mailto:steve.richard=azgs.az.gov@rda-groups.org] On Behalf Of srichardUSGIN
    Sent: 01 March 2015 22:42
    To: Gary Berg-Cross; Metadata IG
    Subject: [rda-metadata-ig] Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept

    I am definitely in the it's a good idea camp on this question, and take it a little further to recommend some pretty specific best practices for how that minimum metadata should be encoded

    Sent from my HTC on T-Mobile 4G LTE

    ----- Reply message -----
    From: "Gary" >
    To: "Metadata IG" >
    Subject: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept
    Date: Sat, Feb 28, 2015 8:19 AM

    One of the issues discussed at a recent RDA outreach workshop was how people felt about "minimal metadata."
    Some cautioned that it is potentially a bad idea, while a pluratity seemed in favor of it and could point to good outcomes using .
    An example provided at the workshop was that of the Dataset Descriptions: HCLS Community Profile discussed by Michel Dumontier (Stanford). The idea here is to:

    Develop a guidance note for reusing existing vocabularies to describe datasets with RDF - Mandatory, recommended, optional descriptors - Identifiers - Versioning - Attribution - Provenance - Content summarization * Recommend vocabulary-linked attributes and value sets
    see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/notes/hcls-dataset/

    We were perhaps more uniform on the idea expressed by NIST's Bob Hanisch that maximum MD causes a problem since people won't "use it."
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/minimal-metadata-concept....
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/44734

submit a comment