AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms

25 Jan 2016
Groups audience: 

Hallo Zhu,
is there a definition of the last two terms: spatial and temporal extent.
I think that at least in your community there must be some definitions around.
Correct?
peter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Wittenburg Tel: +49 2821 49180
***@***.*** ; ***@***.***
RDA Europe Director, RDA TAB Member, EUDAT Scientific Advisor
Senior Advisor Data Systems, Max Planck Computing and Data Facility
Gießenbachstraße 2, 85748 Garching, Germany
http://www.mpcdf.de, http://www.mpcdf.de/~pewi
former affiliation: MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Von: zhuyq=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von YunqiangZhu
Gesendet: Montag, 25. Januar 2016 19:32
An: Wittenburg, Peter; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
Betreff: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
Hi Peter,
Actually, I am unclear the scale of DFIG terms and what are the basic principles of selecting terms. So I try to add some terms I think they are very important to define, describe and use data. Hope it will useful to perfect DFIG terms.
Best regards,
________________________________
ZHU, Yunqiang Ph.d Professor
Director, Department for Geo-data Science and Sharing
Deputy Director,State Key Lab. of Resources and Environmental Information System
Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
诸云强 博士 研究员
中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所
资源与环境信息系统国家重点实验室 副主任
地球数据科学与共享研究室 主任
北京朝阳区大屯路甲11号 100101
电话/传真:010-64888056
From: Peter Wittenburg
Date: 2016-01-25 02:14
To: ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross (***@***.***); Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
Dear all,
i just grabbed all terms I could in DFIG documents and comments so far. I am sure that much is missing.
But it may give a first impression. Most of the terms are not well-defined and people are using different definitions.
Please, feel free to add terms and references.
best
Peter

  • Juha Hakala's picture

    Author: Juha Hakala

    Date: 29 Jan, 2016

    Hello,
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative has definitions for spatial and temporal coverage:
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/spatial
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/temporal
    Unfortunately these definitions (“Spatial characteristics of the resource”, “Temporal characteristics of the resource”) are generic and may not be sufficient for communities which need to be more precise. But in order to improve semantic interoperability with Dublin Core, these definitions could be mentioned, and then extended as required by those who need to go down that road.
    There are currently terms “metadata” and “descriptive metadata” in Peter’s list. You may consider adding the following metadata related terms, which are widely used in library community and elsewhere (definitions are from ISO/DIS 5127):
    administrative metadata (metadata about the maintenance and housekeeping for records); divided into
    - technical metadata (metadata covering the technical requirements and preconditions for processing a records),
    - preservation metadata, and
    - rights metadata
    structural metadata (type of metadata that indicates how compound objects are put together)
    ISO 5127 defines metadata as “data about other data, documents, or records that describes their content, context, structure, format, provenance, and/or rights”, and descriptive metadata as “type of metadata that describes a resource for purposes such as discovery and identification such as creator), title, and subject
    Best regards,
    Juha
    - Show quoted text -From: peter.wittenburg=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Peter Wittenburg
    Sent: 25. tammikuuta 2016 22:00
    To: YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; Wittenburg, Peter <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross <***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hallo Zhu,
    is there a definition of the last two terms: spatial and temporal extent.
    I think that at least in your community there must be some definitions around.
    Correct?
    peter
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peter Wittenburg Tel: +49 2821 49180
    ***@***.*** ; ***@***.***
    RDA Europe Director, RDA TAB Member, EUDAT Scientific Advisor
    Senior Advisor Data Systems, Max Planck Computing and Data Facility
    Gießenbachstraße 2, 85748 Garching, Germany
    http://www.mpcdf.de, http://www.mpcdf.de/~pewi
    former affiliation: MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Von: zhuyq=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von YunqiangZhu
    Gesendet: Montag, 25. Januar 2016 19:32
    An: Wittenburg, Peter; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Betreff: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hi Peter,
    Actually, I am unclear the scale of DFIG terms and what are the basic principles of selecting terms. So I try to add some terms I think they are very important to define, describe and use data. Hope it will useful to perfect DFIG terms.
    Best regards,
    ________________________________
    ZHU, Yunqiang Ph.d Professor
    Director, Department for Geo-data Science and Sharing
    Deputy Director,State Key Lab. of Resources and Environmental Information System
    Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    诸云强 博士 研究员
    中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所
    资源与环境信息系统国家重点实验室 副主任
    地球数据科学与共享研究室 主任
    北京朝阳区大屯路甲11号 100101
    电话/传真:010-64888056
    From: Peter Wittenburg
    Date: 2016-01-25 02:14
    To: ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross (***@***.***); Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Dear all,
    i just grabbed all terms I could in DFIG documents and comments so far. I am sure that much is missing.
    But it may give a first impression. Most of the terms are not well-defined and people are using different definitions.
    Please, feel free to add terms and references.
    best
    Peter

  • Gary Berg-Cross's picture

    Author: Gary Berg-Cross

    Date: 29 Jan, 2016

    Juha,
    Thanks very much for your follow up to the latest discussion of RDA DFT
    terms per Peter's list of terms from Data Fabric.
    I had have a little bit to add to your comments on your metadata which are
    reproduced below:
    >There are currently terms “metadata” and “descriptive metadata” in Peter’s
    list. You may consider adding the following metadata related terms, which
    are widely used in library community and elsewhere (definitions are from
    ISO/DIS 5127):
    Juha,
    Thanks very much for your follow up to the latest discussion of RDA DFT
    terms per Peter's list of terms from Data Fabric.
    I had have a little bit to add to your comments on your metadata which are
    reproduced below:
    >There are currently terms “metadata” and “descriptive metadata” in Peter’s
    list. You may consider adding the following metadata related terms, which
    are widely used in library community and elsewhere (definitions are from
    ISO/DIS 5127):
    >administrative metadata (*metadata a*bout the maintenance and housekeeping
    for *records)*; divided into
    - technical metadata (*metadata *covering the technical
    requirements and preconditions for processing a *records)*,
    - preservation metadata, and
    >- rights metadata
    We do have a definition of

    Administrative metadata in our term tool:
    ​​
    Juha,
    Thanks very much for your follow up to the latest discussion of RDA DFT
    terms per Peter's list of terms from Data Fabric.
    I had have a little bit to add to your comments on your metadata which are
    reproduced below:
    >There are currently terms “metadata” and “descriptive metadata” in Peter’s
    list. You may consider adding the following metadata related terms, which
    are widely used in library community and elsewhere (definitions are from
    ISO/DIS 5127):
    >administrative metadata (*metadata a*bout the maintenance and housekeeping
    for *records)*; divided into
    - technical metadata (*metadata *covering the technical
    requirements and preconditions for processing a *records)*,
    - preservation metadata, and
    Juha,
    Thanks very much for your follow up to the latest discussion of RDA DFT
    terms per Peter's list of terms from Data Fabric.
    I had have a little bit to add to your comments on your metadata which are
    reproduced below:
    >There are currently terms “metadata” and “descriptive metadata” in Peter’s
    list. You may consider adding the following metadata related terms, which
    are widely used in library community and elsewhere (definitions are from
    ISO/DIS 5127):
    >administrative metadata (*metadata a*bout the maintenance and housekeeping
    for *records)*; divided into
    - technical metadata (*metadata *covering the technical
    requirements and preconditions for processing a *records)*,
    - preservation metadata, and
    >- rights metadata
    We do have a definition of

    Administrative metadata in our term tool:
    ​​
    Administrative metadata is a type of Metadata the provides information to
    help manage a resource, such as when and how data was created, file type
    and other technical information, and who can access it.
    Administrative metadata is related to the interaction or use of metadata
    within a specific system.
    See http://smw-rda.esc.rzg.mpg.de/index.php/Administrative_metadata
    This doesn't include al of your distinction of 3 parts to it, which seems
    useful.
    We do note:
    "There are several subsets of administrative data. Representation described
    in a Representation Object is one. Two others that are sometimes listed as
    separate metadata types are:
    Rights management metadata, which deals with intellectual property rights,
    and
    − Preservation metadata, "
    Note we also have a Provenance Metadata concept with relates to if is not
    identical to the preservation MD idea.
    "Provenance information metadata concerning the creation, attribution, or
    version history of managed data." See
    http://smw-rda.esc.rzg.mpg.de/index.php/Provenance_metadata
    We also have
    Structural metadata in the tool.
    A type of metadata that indicates how compound objects are put together.
    See http://smw-rda.esc.rzg.mpg.de/index.php/Structural_metadata
    Since thes are metadata definitions I defer to the various RDA metadata
    groups to weigh in on this to see if they are comfortable adding things
    like technical MD and rights MD. I've included Rebecca and Keith on this
    email as a heads up and as an opportunity to comment.
    Juha, will you be at P7 to continue this discussion and do you want time as
    part of the DFT IG session??
    Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
    ***@***.***
    http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
    Member, Ontolog Board of Trustees
    Independent Consultant
    Potomac, MD
    240-426-0770
    On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Hakala, Juha E <***@***.***>
    wrote:

  • Keith Jeffery's picture

    Author: Keith Jeffery

    Date: 30 Jan, 2016

    Juha –
    As you identify correctly, DC is not great for spatial coordinates (nor temporal for that matter).
    For spatial coordinate systems metadata ISO191115 / EC INSPIRE standard is very good and widely used.
    You are right to mention administrative, technical etc. but in fact in many cases the same metadata elements may e used for multiple purposes so the classification you mention is more about usage than basic properties. Just as one example elements of rights data (copyright/database right) overlap heavily with preservation/curation since both are required for availability and access processing.
    The work ongoingin the various metadata groups of RDA is tending towards a common set of elements that can be used for multiple purposes (discovery, contextualisation (including provenance/quality/relevance), access (including rights)….
    The proposed set (discussed at RDA P6 and at the Coordination meeting in Gaithersburg in December) set may be found on the MIG webpage (Metadata P6 Paris).
    With best wishes
    Keith
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: ***@***.***
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    Past President ERCIM www.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.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    - Show quoted text -From: juha.hakala=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of jehakala
    Sent: 29 January 2016 12:39
    To: Peter Wittenburg; YunqiangZhu; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hello,
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative has definitions for spatial and temporal coverage:
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/spatial
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/temporal
    Unfortunately these definitions (“Spatial characteristics of the resource”, “Temporal characteristics of the resource”) are generic and may not be sufficient for communities which need to be more precise. But in order to improve semantic interoperability with Dublin Core, these definitions could be mentioned, and then extended as required by those who need to go down that road.
    There are currently terms “metadata” and “descriptive metadata” in Peter’s list. You may consider adding the following metadata related terms, which are widely used in library community and elsewhere (definitions are from ISO/DIS 5127):
    administrative metadata (metadata about the maintenance and housekeeping for records); divided into
    - technical metadata (metadata covering the technical requirements and preconditions for processing a records),
    - preservation metadata, and
    - rights metadata
    structural metadata (type of metadata that indicates how compound objects are put together)
    ISO 5127 defines metadata as “data about other data, documents, or records that describes their content, context, structure, format, provenance, and/or rights”, and descriptive metadata as “type of metadata that describes a resource for purposes such as discovery and identification such as creator), title, and subject
    Best regards,
    Juha
    From: peter.wittenburg=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Peter Wittenburg
    Sent: 25. tammikuuta 2016 22:00
    To: YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; Wittenburg, Peter <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross <***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hallo Zhu,
    is there a definition of the last two terms: spatial and temporal extent.
    I think that at least in your community there must be some definitions around.
    Correct?
    peter
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peter Wittenburg Tel: +49 2821 49180
    ***@***.*** ; ***@***.***
    RDA Europe Director, RDA TAB Member, EUDAT Scientific Advisor
    Senior Advisor Data Systems, Max Planck Computing and Data Facility
    Gießenbachstraße 2, 85748 Garching, Germany
    http://www.mpcdf.de, http://www.mpcdf.de/~pewi
    former affiliation: MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Von: zhuyq=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von YunqiangZhu
    Gesendet: Montag, 25. Januar 2016 19:32
    An: Wittenburg, Peter; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Betreff: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hi Peter,
    Actually, I am unclear the scale of DFIG terms and what are the basic principles of selecting terms. So I try to add some terms I think they are very important to define, describe and use data. Hope it will useful to perfect DFIG terms.
    Best regards,
    ________________________________
    ZHU, Yunqiang Ph.d Professor
    Director, Department for Geo-data Science and Sharing
    Deputy Director,State Key Lab. of Resources and Environmental Information System
    Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    诸云强 博士 研究员
    中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所
    资源与环境信息系统国家重点实验室 副主任
    地球数据科学与共享研究室 主任
    北京朝阳区大屯路甲11号 100101
    电话/传真:010-64888056
    From: Peter Wittenburg
    Date: 2016-01-25 02:14
    To: ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross (***@***.***); Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Dear all,
    i just grabbed all terms I could in DFIG documents and comments so far. I am sure that much is missing.
    But it may give a first impression. Most of the terms are not well-defined and people are using different definitions.
    Please, feel free to add terms and references.
    best
    Peter
    Juha –
    As you identify correctly, DC is not great for spatial coordinates (nor temporal for that matter).
    For spatial coordinate systems metadata ISO191115 / EC INSPIRE standard is very good and widely used.
    You are right to mention administrative, technical etc. but in fact in many cases the same metadata elements may e used for multiple purposes so the classification you mention is more about usage than basic properties. Just as one example elements of rights data (copyright/database right) overlap heavily with preservation/curation since both are required for availability and access processing.
    The work ongoingin the various metadata groups of RDA is tending towards a common set of elements that can be used for multiple purposes (discovery, contextualisation (including provenance/quality/relevance), access (including rights)….
    The proposed set (discussed at RDA P6 and at the Coordination meeting in Gaithersburg in December) set may be found on the MIG webpage (Metadata P6 Paris).
    With best wishes
    Keith
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: ***@***.***
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    Past President ERCIM www.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: juha.hakala=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of jehakala
    Sent: 29 January 2016 12:39
    To: Peter Wittenburg; YunqiangZhu; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hello,
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative has definitions for spatial and temporal coverage:
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/spatial
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/temporal
    Unfortunately these definitions (“Spatial characteristics of the resource”, “Temporal characteristics of the resource”) are generic and may not be sufficient for communities which need to be more precise. But in order to improve semantic interoperability with Dublin Core, these definitions could be mentioned, and then extended as required by those who need to go down that road.
    There are currently terms “metadata” and “descriptive metadata” in Peter’s list. You may consider adding the following metadata related terms, which are widely used in library community and elsewhere (definitions are from ISO/DIS 5127):
    administrative metadata (metadata about the maintenance and housekeeping for records); divided into
    - technical metadata (metadata covering the technical requirements and preconditions for processing a records),
    - preservation metadata, and
    - rights metadata
    structural metadata (type of metadata that indicates how compound objects are put together)
    ISO 5127 defines metadata as “data about other data, documents, or records that describes their content, context, structure, format, provenance, and/or rights”, and descriptive metadata as “type of metadata that describes a resource for purposes such as discovery and identification such as creator), title, and subject
    Best regards,
    Juha
    - Show quoted text -From: peter.wittenburg=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Peter Wittenburg
    Sent: 25. tammikuuta 2016 22:00
    To: YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; Wittenburg, Peter <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross <***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hallo Zhu,
    is there a definition of the last two terms: spatial and temporal extent.
    I think that at least in your community there must be some definitions around.
    Correct?
    peter
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peter Wittenburg Tel: +49 2821 49180
    ***@***.*** ; ***@***.***
    RDA Europe Director, RDA TAB Member, EUDAT Scientific Advisor
    Senior Advisor Data Systems, Max Planck Computing and Data Facility
    Gießenbachstraße 2, 85748 Garching, Germany
    http://www.mpcdf.de, http://www.mpcdf.de/~pewi
    former affiliation: MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Von: zhuyq=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von YunqiangZhu
    Gesendet: Montag, 25. Januar 2016 19:32
    An: Wittenburg, Peter; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Betreff: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hi Peter,
    Actually, I am unclear the scale of DFIG terms and what are the basic principles of selecting terms. So I try to add some terms I think they are very important to define, describe and use data. Hope it will useful to perfect DFIG terms.
    Best regards,
    ________________________________
    ZHU, Yunqiang Ph.d Professor
    Director, Department for Geo-data Science and Sharing
    Deputy Director,State Key Lab. of Resources and Environmental Information System
    Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    诸云强 博士 研究员
    中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所
    资源与环境信息系统国家重点实验室 副主任
    地球数据科学与共享研究室 主任
    北京朝阳区大屯路甲11号 100101
    电话/传真:010-64888056
    From: Peter Wittenburg
    Date: 2016-01-25 02:14
    To: ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross (***@***.***); Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Dear all,
    i just grabbed all terms I could in DFIG documents and comments so far. I am sure that much is missing.
    But it may give a first impression. Most of the terms are not well-defined and people are using different definitions.
    Please, feel free to add terms and references.
    best
    Peter

  • Juha Hakala's picture

    Author: Juha Hakala

    Date: 01 Feb, 2016

    Hello Keith,
    some comments below.
    - Show quoted text -From: Keith Jeffery [mailto:***@***.***]
    Sent: 30. tammikuuta 2016 13:47
    To: Hakala, Juha E <***@***.***>; Peter Wittenburg
    <***@***.***>; YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross <***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
    Subject: RE: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Juha –
    As you identify correctly, DC is not great for spatial coordinates (nor temporal for that matter).
    For spatial coordinate systems metadata ISO191115 / EC INSPIRE standard is very good and widely used.
    Juha: Yes, for geographical information metadata as specified in ISO 19115:2014 is not only a good solution, but also a mandatory one at least within EU. There is probably no other kind of metadata which is co-ordinated so strictly internationally.
    I am not aware of similar overarching standard for temporal data. ISO 8601 concentrates just on how to express date, time or periods (which is of course useful too). A new version of the standard is under development, and it will support new functionalities, at least some of which may be of interest to this community.
    You are right to mention administrative, technical etc. but in fact in many cases the same metadata elements may e used for multiple purposes so the classification you mention is more about usage than basic properties. Just as one example elements of rights data (copyright/database right) overlap heavily with preservation/curation since both are required for availability and access processing.
    Juha: The way the national library of Finland has solved this in the practical level is that the METS containers we send to the digital archive will contain two kinds of rights metadata: copyright / license information embedded in MARC 21 descriptive metadata, and preservation related rights information expressed in PREMIS Rights. We use terms preservation related rights metadata (which apply only within the digital archive) and usage related rights metadata (which apply anywhere else).
    The work ongoingin the various metadata groups of RDA is tending towards a common set of elements that can be used for multiple purposes (discovery, contextualisation (including provenance/quality/relevance), access (including rights)….
    Juha: There is definitely plenty of overlap between metadata categories. For instance, libraries’ MARC 21 format for descriptive metadata contains a lot of administrative metadata elements and structural metadata links. IMO such overlap is OK, what is important is that we have a complete list of elements needed (which is what RDA metadata groups are doing).
    Moreover, when managing electronic resources all these point of views can / should be taken into account, and that the necessary metadata elements can be used by those programs that need it. So, if the library system needs to know the copyright and licensing status of a research data set, that information should be available in MARC 21, while e.g. organizational repository using DSpace may prefer to have that metadata in Dublin Core.
    All the best,
    Juha
    The proposed set (discussed at RDA P6 and at the Coordination meeting in Gaithersburg in December) set may be found on the MIG webpage (Metadata P6 Paris).
    With best wishes
    Keith
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: ***@***.***
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    Past President ERCIM www.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: juha.hakala=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of jehakala
    Sent: 29 January 2016 12:39
    To: Peter Wittenburg; YunqiangZhu; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hello,
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative has definitions for spatial and temporal coverage:
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/spatial
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/temporal
    Unfortunately these definitions (“Spatial characteristics of the resource”, “Temporal characteristics of the resource”) are generic and may not be sufficient for communities which need to be more precise. But in order to improve semantic interoperability with Dublin Core, these definitions could be mentioned, and then extended as required by those who need to go down that road.
    There are currently terms “metadata” and “descriptive metadata” in Peter’s list. You may consider adding the following metadata related terms, which are widely used in library community and elsewhere (definitions are from ISO/DIS 5127):
    administrative metadata (metadata about the maintenance and housekeeping for records); divided into
    - technical metadata (metadata covering the technical requirements and preconditions for processing a records),
    - preservation metadata, and
    - rights metadata
    structural metadata (type of metadata that indicates how compound objects are put together)
    ISO 5127 defines metadata as “data about other data, documents, or records that describes their content, context, structure, format, provenance, and/or rights”, and descriptive metadata as “type of metadata that describes a resource for purposes such as discovery and identification such as creator), title, and subject
    Best regards,
    Juha
    From: peter.wittenburg=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Peter Wittenburg
    Sent: 25. tammikuuta 2016 22:00
    To: YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; Wittenburg, Peter <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross <***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hallo Zhu,
    is there a definition of the last two terms: spatial and temporal extent.
    I think that at least in your community there must be some definitions around.
    Correct?
    peter
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peter Wittenburg Tel: +49 2821 49180
    ***@***.*** ; ***@***.***
    RDA Europe Director, RDA TAB Member, EUDAT Scientific Advisor
    Senior Advisor Data Systems, Max Planck Computing and Data Facility
    Gießenbachstraße 2, 85748 Garching, Germany
    http://www.mpcdf.de, http://www.mpcdf.de/~pewi
    former affiliation: MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Von: zhuyq=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von YunqiangZhu
    Gesendet: Montag, 25. Januar 2016 19:32
    An: Wittenburg, Peter; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Betreff: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hi Peter,
    Actually, I am unclear the scale of DFIG terms and what are the basic principles of selecting terms. So I try to add some terms I think they are very important to define, describe and use data. Hope it will useful to perfect DFIG terms.
    Best regards,
    ________________________________
    ZHU, Yunqiang Ph.d Professor
    Director, Department for Geo-data Science and Sharing
    Deputy Director,State Key Lab. of Resources and Environmental Information System
    Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    诸云强 博士 研究员
    中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所
    资源与环境信息系统国家重点实验室 副主任
    地球数据科学与共享研究室 主任
    北京朝阳区大屯路甲11号 100101
    电话/传真:010-64888056
    From: Peter Wittenburg
    Date: 2016-01-25 02:14
    To: ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross (***@***.***); Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Dear all,
    i just grabbed all terms I could in DFIG documents and comments so far. I am sure that much is missing.
    But it may give a first impression. Most of the terms are not well-defined and people are using different definitions.
    Please, feel free to add terms and references.
    best
    Peter
    Hello Keith,
    some comments below.
    From: Keith Jeffery [mailto:***@***.***]
    Sent: 30. tammikuuta 2016 13:47
    To: Hakala, Juha E <***@***.***>; Peter Wittenburg
    <***@***.***>; YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross <***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
    Subject: RE: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Juha –
    As you identify correctly, DC is not great for spatial coordinates (nor temporal for that matter).
    For spatial coordinate systems metadata ISO191115 / EC INSPIRE standard is very good and widely used.
    Juha: Yes, for geographical information metadata as specified in ISO 19115:2014 is not only a good solution, but also a mandatory one at least within EU. There is probably no other kind of metadata which is co-ordinated so strictly internationally.
    I am not aware of similar overarching standard for temporal data. ISO 8601 concentrates just on how to express date, time or periods (which is of course useful too). A new version of the standard is under development, and it will support new functionalities, at least some of which may be of interest to this community.
    You are right to mention administrative, technical etc. but in fact in many cases the same metadata elements may e used for multiple purposes so the classification you mention is more about usage than basic properties. Just as one example elements of rights data (copyright/database right) overlap heavily with preservation/curation since both are required for availability and access processing.
    Juha: The way the national library of Finland has solved this in the practical level is that the METS containers we send to the digital archive will contain two kinds of rights metadata: copyright / license information embedded in MARC 21 descriptive metadata, and preservation related rights information expressed in PREMIS Rights. We use terms preservation related rights metadata (which apply only within the digital archive) and usage related rights metadata (which apply anywhere else).
    The work ongoingin the various metadata groups of RDA is tending towards a common set of elements that can be used for multiple purposes (discovery, contextualisation (including provenance/quality/relevance), access (including rights)….
    Juha: There is definitely plenty of overlap between metadata categories. For instance, libraries’ MARC 21 format for descriptive metadata contains a lot of administrative metadata elements and structural metadata links. IMO such overlap is OK, what is important is that we have a complete list of elements needed (which is what RDA metadata groups are doing).
    Moreover, when managing electronic resources all these point of views can / should be taken into account, and that the necessary metadata elements can be used by those programs that need it. So, if the library system needs to know the copyright and licensing status of a research data set, that information should be available in MARC 21, while e.g. organizational repository using DSpace may prefer to have that metadata in Dublin Core.
    All the best,
    Juha
    The proposed set (discussed at RDA P6 and at the Coordination meeting in Gaithersburg in December) set may be found on the MIG webpage (Metadata P6 Paris).
    With best wishes
    Keith
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: ***@***.***
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    Past President ERCIM www.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.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    - Show quoted text -From: juha.hakala=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of jehakala
    Sent: 29 January 2016 12:39
    To: Peter Wittenburg; YunqiangZhu; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hello,
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative has definitions for spatial and temporal coverage:
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/spatial
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/temporal
    Unfortunately these definitions (“Spatial characteristics of the resource”, “Temporal characteristics of the resource”) are generic and may not be sufficient for communities which need to be more precise. But in order to improve semantic interoperability with Dublin Core, these definitions could be mentioned, and then extended as required by those who need to go down that road.
    There are currently terms “metadata” and “descriptive metadata” in Peter’s list. You may consider adding the following metadata related terms, which are widely used in library community and elsewhere (definitions are from ISO/DIS 5127):
    administrative metadata (metadata about the maintenance and housekeeping for records); divided into
    - technical metadata (metadata covering the technical requirements and preconditions for processing a records),
    - preservation metadata, and
    - rights metadata
    structural metadata (type of metadata that indicates how compound objects are put together)
    ISO 5127 defines metadata as “data about other data, documents, or records that describes their content, context, structure, format, provenance, and/or rights”, and descriptive metadata as “type of metadata that describes a resource for purposes such as discovery and identification such as creator), title, and subject
    Best regards,
    Juha
    From: peter.wittenburg=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Peter Wittenburg
    Sent: 25. tammikuuta 2016 22:00
    To: YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; Wittenburg, Peter <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross <***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hallo Zhu,
    is there a definition of the last two terms: spatial and temporal extent.
    I think that at least in your community there must be some definitions around.
    Correct?
    peter
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peter Wittenburg Tel: +49 2821 49180
    ***@***.*** ; ***@***.***
    RDA Europe Director, RDA TAB Member, EUDAT Scientific Advisor
    Senior Advisor Data Systems, Max Planck Computing and Data Facility
    Gießenbachstraße 2, 85748 Garching, Germany
    http://www.mpcdf.de, http://www.mpcdf.de/~pewi
    former affiliation: MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Von: zhuyq=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von YunqiangZhu
    Gesendet: Montag, 25. Januar 2016 19:32
    An: Wittenburg, Peter; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Betreff: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hi Peter,
    Actually, I am unclear the scale of DFIG terms and what are the basic principles of selecting terms. So I try to add some terms I think they are very important to define, describe and use data. Hope it will useful to perfect DFIG terms.
    Best regards,
    ________________________________
    ZHU, Yunqiang Ph.d Professor
    Director, Department for Geo-data Science and Sharing
    Deputy Director,State Key Lab. of Resources and Environmental Information System
    Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    诸云强 博士 研究员
    中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所
    资源与环境信息系统国家重点实验室 副主任
    地球数据科学与共享研究室 主任
    北京朝阳区大屯路甲11号 100101
    电话/传真:010-64888056
    From: Peter Wittenburg
    Date: 2016-01-25 02:14
    To: ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross (***@***.***); Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Dear all,
    i just grabbed all terms I could in DFIG documents and comments so far. I am sure that much is missing.
    But it may give a first impression. Most of the terms are not well-defined and people are using different definitions.
    Please, feel free to add terms and references.
    best
    Peter
    Hello Keith,
    some comments below.
    From: Keith Jeffery [mailto:***@***.***]
    Sent: 30. tammikuuta 2016 13:47
    To: Hakala, Juha E <***@***.***>; Peter Wittenburg
    <***@***.***>; YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross <***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
    Subject: RE: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Juha –
    As you identify correctly, DC is not great for spatial coordinates (nor temporal for that matter).
    For spatial coordinate systems metadata ISO191115 / EC INSPIRE standard is very good and widely used.
    Juha: Yes, for geographical information metadata as specified in ISO 19115:2014 is not only a good solution, but also a mandatory one at least within EU. There is probably no other kind of metadata which is co-ordinated so strictly internationally.
    I am not aware of similar overarching standard for temporal data. ISO 8601 concentrates just on how to express date, time or periods (which is of course useful too). A new version of the standard is under development, and it will support new functionalities, at least some of which may be of interest to this community.
    You are right to mention administrative, technical etc. but in fact in many cases the same metadata elements may e used for multiple purposes so the classification you mention is more about usage than basic properties. Just as one example elements of rights data (copyright/database right) overlap heavily with preservation/curation since both are required for availability and access processing.
    Juha: The way the national library of Finland has solved this in the practical level is that the METS containers we send to the digital archive will contain two kinds of rights metadata: copyright / license information embedded in MARC 21 descriptive metadata, and preservation related rights information expressed in PREMIS Rights. We use terms preservation related rights metadata (which apply only within the digital archive) and usage related rights metadata (which apply anywhere else).
    The work ongoingin the various metadata groups of RDA is tending towards a common set of elements that can be used for multiple purposes (discovery, contextualisation (including provenance/quality/relevance), access (including rights)….
    Juha: There is definitely plenty of overlap between metadata categories. For instance, libraries’ MARC 21 format for descriptive metadata contains a lot of administrative metadata elements and structural metadata links. IMO such overlap is OK, what is important is that we have a complete list of elements needed (which is what RDA metadata groups are doing).
    Moreover, when managing electronic resources all these point of views can / should be taken into account, and that the necessary metadata elements can be used by those programs that need it. So, if the library system needs to know the copyright and licensing status of a research data set, that information should be available in MARC 21, while e.g. organizational repository using DSpace may prefer to have that metadata in Dublin Core.
    All the best,
    Juha
    The proposed set (discussed at RDA P6 and at the Coordination meeting in Gaithersburg in December) set may be found on the MIG webpage (Metadata P6 Paris).
    With best wishes
    Keith
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: ***@***.***
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    Past President ERCIM www.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: juha.hakala=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of jehakala
    Sent: 29 January 2016 12:39
    To: Peter Wittenburg; YunqiangZhu; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hello,
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative has definitions for spatial and temporal coverage:
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/spatial
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/temporal
    Unfortunately these definitions (“Spatial characteristics of the resource”, “Temporal characteristics of the resource”) are generic and may not be sufficient for communities which need to be more precise. But in order to improve semantic interoperability with Dublin Core, these definitions could be mentioned, and then extended as required by those who need to go down that road.
    There are currently terms “metadata” and “descriptive metadata” in Peter’s list. You may consider adding the following metadata related terms, which are widely used in library community and elsewhere (definitions are from ISO/DIS 5127):
    administrative metadata (metadata about the maintenance and housekeeping for records); divided into
    - technical metadata (metadata covering the technical requirements and preconditions for processing a records),
    - preservation metadata, and
    - rights metadata
    structural metadata (type of metadata that indicates how compound objects are put together)
    ISO 5127 defines metadata as “data about other data, documents, or records that describes their content, context, structure, format, provenance, and/or rights”, and descriptive metadata as “type of metadata that describes a resource for purposes such as discovery and identification such as creator), title, and subject
    Best regards,
    Juha
    - Show quoted text -From: peter.wittenburg=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Peter Wittenburg
    Sent: 25. tammikuuta 2016 22:00
    To: YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; Wittenburg, Peter <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross <***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hallo Zhu,
    is there a definition of the last two terms: spatial and temporal extent.
    I think that at least in your community there must be some definitions around.
    Correct?
    peter
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peter Wittenburg Tel: +49 2821 49180
    ***@***.*** ; ***@***.***
    RDA Europe Director, RDA TAB Member, EUDAT Scientific Advisor
    Senior Advisor Data Systems, Max Planck Computing and Data Facility
    Gießenbachstraße 2, 85748 Garching, Germany
    http://www.mpcdf.de, http://www.mpcdf.de/~pewi
    former affiliation: MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Von: zhuyq=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von YunqiangZhu
    Gesendet: Montag, 25. Januar 2016 19:32
    An: Wittenburg, Peter; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Betreff: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hi Peter,
    Actually, I am unclear the scale of DFIG terms and what are the basic principles of selecting terms. So I try to add some terms I think they are very important to define, describe and use data. Hope it will useful to perfect DFIG terms.
    Best regards,
    ________________________________
    ZHU, Yunqiang Ph.d Professor
    Director, Department for Geo-data Science and Sharing
    Deputy Director,State Key Lab. of Resources and Environmental Information System
    Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    诸云强 博士 研究员
    中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所
    资源与环境信息系统国家重点实验室 副主任
    地球数据科学与共享研究室 主任
    北京朝阳区大屯路甲11号 100101
    电话/传真:010-64888056
    From: Peter Wittenburg
    Date: 2016-01-25 02:14
    To: ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross (***@***.***); Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Dear all,
    i just grabbed all terms I could in DFIG documents and comments so far. I am sure that much is missing.
    But it may give a first impression. Most of the terms are not well-defined and people are using different definitions.
    Please, feel free to add terms and references.
    best
    Peter

  • Keith Jeffery's picture

    Author: Keith Jeffery

    Date: 01 Feb, 2016

    Just -
    I think we agree! I have been concerned particularly with metadata interconverdion. Using CERIF as the canonical superset. RDA work to date seems to require this approach. Syntax conversion is difficult enough (graphs to hierarchies for example) but multilingual semantics conversion is a real challenge!
    best wishes. Keith
    Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone
    ---- Hakala, Juha E wrote ----
    Hello Keith,
    some comments below.
    - Show quoted text -From: Keith Jeffery [mailto:***@***.***]
    Sent: 30. tammikuuta 2016 13:47
    To: Hakala, Juha E <***@***.***>; Peter Wittenburg
    <***@***.***>; YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross <***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
    Subject: RE: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Juha –
    As you identify correctly, DC is not great for spatial coordinates (nor temporal for that matter).
    For spatial coordinate systems metadata ISO191115 / EC INSPIRE standard is very good and widely used.
    Juha: Yes, for geographical information metadata as specified in ISO 19115:2014 is not only a good solution, but also a mandatory one at least within EU. There is probably no other kind of metadata which is co-ordinated so strictly internationally.
    I am not aware of similar overarching standard for temporal data. ISO 8601 concentrates just on how to express date, time or periods (which is of course useful too). A new version of the standard is under development, and it will support new functionalities, at least some of which may be of interest to this community.
    You are right to mention administrative, technical etc. but in fact in many cases the same metadata elements may e used for multiple purposes so the classification you mention is more about usage than basic properties. Just as one example elements of rights data (copyright/database right) overlap heavily with preservation/curation since both are required for availability and access processing.
    Juha: The way the national library of Finland has solved this in the practical level is that the METS containers we send to the digital archive will contain two kinds of rights metadata: copyright / license information embedded in MARC 21 descriptive metadata, and preservation related rights information expressed in PREMIS Rights. We use terms preservation related rights metadata (which apply only within the digital archive) and usage related rights metadata (which apply anywhere else).
    The work ongoingin the various metadata groups of RDA is tending towards a common set of elements that can be used for multiple purposes (discovery, contextualisation (including provenance/quality/relevance), access (including rights)….
    Juha: There is definitely plenty of overlap between metadata categories. For instance, libraries’ MARC 21 format for descriptive metadata contains a lot of administrative metadata elements and structural metadata links. IMO such overlap is OK, what is important is that we have a complete list of elements needed (which is what RDA metadata groups are doing).
    Moreover, when managing electronic resources all these point of views can / should be taken into account, and that the necessary metadata elements can be used by those programs that need it. So, if the library system needs to know the copyright and licensing status of a research data set, that information should be available in MARC 21, while e.g. organizational repository using DSpace may prefer to have that metadata in Dublin Core.
    All the best,
    Juha
    The proposed set (discussed at RDA P6 and at the Coordination meeting in Gaithersburg in December) set may be found on the MIG webpage (Metadata P6 Paris).
    With best wishes
    Keith
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: ***@***.***
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    Past President ERCIM www.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: juha.hakala=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of jehakala
    Sent: 29 January 2016 12:39
    To: Peter Wittenburg; YunqiangZhu; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hello,
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative has definitions for spatial and temporal coverage:
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/spatial
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/temporal
    Unfortunately these definitions (“Spatial characteristics of the resource”, “Temporal characteristics of the resource”) are generic and may not be sufficient for communities which need to be more precise. But in order to improve semantic interoperability with Dublin Core, these definitions could be mentioned, and then extended as required by those who need to go down that road.
    There are currently terms “metadata” and “descriptive metadata” in Peter’s list. You may consider adding the following metadata related terms, which are widely used in library community and elsewhere (definitions are from ISO/DIS 5127):
    administrative metadata (metadata about the maintenance and housekeeping for records); divided into
    - technical metadata (metadata covering the technical requirements and preconditions for processing a records),
    - preservation metadata, and
    - rights metadata
    structural metadata (type of metadata that indicates how compound objects are put together)
    ISO 5127 defines metadata as “data about other data, documents, or records that describes their content, context, structure, format, provenance, and/or rights”, and descriptive metadata as “type of metadata that describes a resource for purposes such as discovery and identification such as creator), title, and subject
    Best regards,
    Juha
    From: peter.wittenburg=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Peter Wittenburg
    Sent: 25. tammikuuta 2016 22:00
    To: YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; Wittenburg, Peter <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross <***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hallo Zhu,
    is there a definition of the last two terms: spatial and temporal extent.
    I think that at least in your community there must be some definitions around.
    Correct?
    peter
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peter Wittenburg Tel: +49 2821 49180
    ***@***.*** ; ***@***.***
    RDA Europe Director, RDA TAB Member, EUDAT Scientific Advisor
    Senior Advisor Data Systems, Max Planck Computing and Data Facility
    Gießenbachstraße 2, 85748 Garching, Germany
    http://www.mpcdf.de, http://www.mpcdf.de/~pewi
    former affiliation: MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Von: zhuyq=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von YunqiangZhu
    Gesendet: Montag, 25. Januar 2016 19:32
    An: Wittenburg, Peter; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Betreff: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hi Peter,
    Actually, I am unclear the scale of DFIG terms and what are the basic principles of selecting terms. So I try to add some terms I think they are very important to define, describe and use data. Hope it will useful to perfect DFIG terms.
    Best regards,
    ________________________________
    ZHU, Yunqiang Ph.d Professor
    Director, Department for Geo-data Science and Sharing
    Deputy Director,State Key Lab. of Resources and Environmental Information System
    Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    诸云强 博士 研究员
    中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所
    资源与环境信息系统国家重点实验室 副主任
    地球数据科学与共享研究室 主任
    北京朝阳区大屯路甲11号 100101
    电话/传真:010-64888056
    From: Peter Wittenburg
    Date: 2016-01-25 02:14
    To: ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross (***@***.***); Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Dear all,
    i just grabbed all terms I could in DFIG documents and comments so far. I am sure that much is missing.
    But it may give a first impression. Most of the terms are not well-defined and people are using different definitions.
    Please, feel free to add terms and references.
    best
    Peter
    Just -
    I think we agree! I have been concerned particularly with metadata interconverdion. Using CERIF as the canonical superset. RDA work to date seems to require this approach. Syntax conversion is difficult enough (graphs to hierarchies for example) but multilingual semantics conversion is a real challenge!
    best wishes. Keith
    Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone
    ---- Hakala, Juha E wrote ----
    Hello Keith,
    some comments below.
    From: Keith Jeffery [mailto:***@***.***]
    Sent: 30. tammikuuta 2016 13:47
    To: Hakala, Juha E <***@***.***>; Peter Wittenburg
    <***@***.***>; YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross <***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
    Subject: RE: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Juha –
    As you identify correctly, DC is not great for spatial coordinates (nor temporal for that matter).
    For spatial coordinate systems metadata ISO191115 / EC INSPIRE standard is very good and widely used.
    Juha: Yes, for geographical information metadata as specified in ISO 19115:2014 is not only a good solution, but also a mandatory one at least within EU. There is probably no other kind of metadata which is co-ordinated so strictly internationally.
    I am not aware of similar overarching standard for temporal data. ISO 8601 concentrates just on how to express date, time or periods (which is of course useful too). A new version of the standard is under development, and it will support new functionalities, at least some of which may be of interest to this community.
    You are right to mention administrative, technical etc. but in fact in many cases the same metadata elements may e used for multiple purposes so the classification you mention is more about usage than basic properties. Just as one example elements of rights data (copyright/database right) overlap heavily with preservation/curation since both are required for availability and access processing.
    Juha: The way the national library of Finland has solved this in the practical level is that the METS containers we send to the digital archive will contain two kinds of rights metadata: copyright / license information embedded in MARC 21 descriptive metadata, and preservation related rights information expressed in PREMIS Rights. We use terms preservation related rights metadata (which apply only within the digital archive) and usage related rights metadata (which apply anywhere else).
    The work ongoingin the various metadata groups of RDA is tending towards a common set of elements that can be used for multiple purposes (discovery, contextualisation (including provenance/quality/relevance), access (including rights)….
    Juha: There is definitely plenty of overlap between metadata categories. For instance, libraries’ MARC 21 format for descriptive metadata contains a lot of administrative metadata elements and structural metadata links. IMO such overlap is OK, what is important is that we have a complete list of elements needed (which is what RDA metadata groups are doing).
    Moreover, when managing electronic resources all these point of views can / should be taken into account, and that the necessary metadata elements can be used by those programs that need it. So, if the library system needs to know the copyright and licensing status of a research data set, that information should be available in MARC 21, while e.g. organizational repository using DSpace may prefer to have that metadata in Dublin Core.
    All the best,
    Juha
    The proposed set (discussed at RDA P6 and at the Coordination meeting in Gaithersburg in December) set may be found on the MIG webpage (Metadata P6 Paris).
    With best wishes
    Keith
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: ***@***.***
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    Past President ERCIM www.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.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    - Show quoted text -From: juha.hakala=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of jehakala
    Sent: 29 January 2016 12:39
    To: Peter Wittenburg; YunqiangZhu; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hello,
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative has definitions for spatial and temporal coverage:
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/spatial
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/temporal
    Unfortunately these definitions (“Spatial characteristics of the resource”, “Temporal characteristics of the resource”) are generic and may not be sufficient for communities which need to be more precise. But in order to improve semantic interoperability with Dublin Core, these definitions could be mentioned, and then extended as required by those who need to go down that road.
    There are currently terms “metadata” and “descriptive metadata” in Peter’s list. You may consider adding the following metadata related terms, which are widely used in library community and elsewhere (definitions are from ISO/DIS 5127):
    administrative metadata (metadata about the maintenance and housekeeping for records); divided into
    - technical metadata (metadata covering the technical requirements and preconditions for processing a records),
    - preservation metadata, and
    - rights metadata
    structural metadata (type of metadata that indicates how compound objects are put together)
    ISO 5127 defines metadata as “data about other data, documents, or records that describes their content, context, structure, format, provenance, and/or rights”, and descriptive metadata as “type of metadata that describes a resource for purposes such as discovery and identification such as creator), title, and subject
    Best regards,
    Juha
    From: peter.wittenburg=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Peter Wittenburg
    Sent: 25. tammikuuta 2016 22:00
    To: YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; Wittenburg, Peter <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross <***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hallo Zhu,
    is there a definition of the last two terms: spatial and temporal extent.
    I think that at least in your community there must be some definitions around.
    Correct?
    peter
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peter Wittenburg Tel: +49 2821 49180
    ***@***.*** ; ***@***.***
    RDA Europe Director, RDA TAB Member, EUDAT Scientific Advisor
    Senior Advisor Data Systems, Max Planck Computing and Data Facility
    Gießenbachstraße 2, 85748 Garching, Germany
    http://www.mpcdf.de, http://www.mpcdf.de/~pewi
    former affiliation: MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Von: zhuyq=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von YunqiangZhu
    Gesendet: Montag, 25. Januar 2016 19:32
    An: Wittenburg, Peter; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Betreff: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hi Peter,
    Actually, I am unclear the scale of DFIG terms and what are the basic principles of selecting terms. So I try to add some terms I think they are very important to define, describe and use data. Hope it will useful to perfect DFIG terms.
    Best regards,
    ________________________________
    ZHU, Yunqiang Ph.d Professor
    Director, Department for Geo-data Science and Sharing
    Deputy Director,State Key Lab. of Resources and Environmental Information System
    Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    诸云强 博士 研究员
    中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所
    资源与环境信息系统国家重点实验室 副主任
    地球数据科学与共享研究室 主任
    北京朝阳区大屯路甲11号 100101
    电话/传真:010-64888056
    From: Peter Wittenburg
    Date: 2016-01-25 02:14
    To: ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross (***@***.***); Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Dear all,
    i just grabbed all terms I could in DFIG documents and comments so far. I am sure that much is missing.
    But it may give a first impression. Most of the terms are not well-defined and people are using different definitions.
    Please, feel free to add terms and references.
    best
    Peter
    Just -
    I think we agree! I have been concerned particularly with metadata interconverdion. Using CERIF as the canonical superset. RDA work to date seems to require this approach. Syntax conversion is difficult enough (graphs to hierarchies for example) but multilingual semantics conversion is a real challenge!
    best wishes. Keith
    Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone
    ---- Hakala, Juha E wrote ----
    Hello Keith,
    some comments below.
    From: Keith Jeffery [mailto:***@***.***]
    Sent: 30. tammikuuta 2016 13:47
    To: Hakala, Juha E <***@***.***>; Peter Wittenburg
    <***@***.***>; YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross <***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
    Subject: RE: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Juha –
    As you identify correctly, DC is not great for spatial coordinates (nor temporal for that matter).
    For spatial coordinate systems metadata ISO191115 / EC INSPIRE standard is very good and widely used.
    Juha: Yes, for geographical information metadata as specified in ISO 19115:2014 is not only a good solution, but also a mandatory one at least within EU. There is probably no other kind of metadata which is co-ordinated so strictly internationally.
    I am not aware of similar overarching standard for temporal data. ISO 8601 concentrates just on how to express date, time or periods (which is of course useful too). A new version of the standard is under development, and it will support new functionalities, at least some of which may be of interest to this community.
    You are right to mention administrative, technical etc. but in fact in many cases the same metadata elements may e used for multiple purposes so the classification you mention is more about usage than basic properties. Just as one example elements of rights data (copyright/database right) overlap heavily with preservation/curation since both are required for availability and access processing.
    Juha: The way the national library of Finland has solved this in the practical level is that the METS containers we send to the digital archive will contain two kinds of rights metadata: copyright / license information embedded in MARC 21 descriptive metadata, and preservation related rights information expressed in PREMIS Rights. We use terms preservation related rights metadata (which apply only within the digital archive) and usage related rights metadata (which apply anywhere else).
    The work ongoingin the various metadata groups of RDA is tending towards a common set of elements that can be used for multiple purposes (discovery, contextualisation (including provenance/quality/relevance), access (including rights)….
    Juha: There is definitely plenty of overlap between metadata categories. For instance, libraries’ MARC 21 format for descriptive metadata contains a lot of administrative metadata elements and structural metadata links. IMO such overlap is OK, what is important is that we have a complete list of elements needed (which is what RDA metadata groups are doing).
    Moreover, when managing electronic resources all these point of views can / should be taken into account, and that the necessary metadata elements can be used by those programs that need it. So, if the library system needs to know the copyright and licensing status of a research data set, that information should be available in MARC 21, while e.g. organizational repository using DSpace may prefer to have that metadata in Dublin Core.
    All the best,
    Juha
    The proposed set (discussed at RDA P6 and at the Coordination meeting in Gaithersburg in December) set may be found on the MIG webpage (Metadata P6 Paris).
    With best wishes
    Keith
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: ***@***.***
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    Past President ERCIM www.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: juha.hakala=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of jehakala
    Sent: 29 January 2016 12:39
    To: Peter Wittenburg; YunqiangZhu; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hello,
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative has definitions for spatial and temporal coverage:
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/spatial
    http://purl.org/dc/terms/temporal
    Unfortunately these definitions (“Spatial characteristics of the resource”, “Temporal characteristics of the resource”) are generic and may not be sufficient for communities which need to be more precise. But in order to improve semantic interoperability with Dublin Core, these definitions could be mentioned, and then extended as required by those who need to go down that road.
    There are currently terms “metadata” and “descriptive metadata” in Peter’s list. You may consider adding the following metadata related terms, which are widely used in library community and elsewhere (definitions are from ISO/DIS 5127):
    administrative metadata (metadata about the maintenance and housekeeping for records); divided into
    - technical metadata (metadata covering the technical requirements and preconditions for processing a records),
    - preservation metadata, and
    - rights metadata
    structural metadata (type of metadata that indicates how compound objects are put together)
    ISO 5127 defines metadata as “data about other data, documents, or records that describes their content, context, structure, format, provenance, and/or rights”, and descriptive metadata as “type of metadata that describes a resource for purposes such as discovery and identification such as creator), title, and subject
    Best regards,
    Juha
    - Show quoted text -From: peter.wittenburg=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Peter Wittenburg
    Sent: 25. tammikuuta 2016 22:00
    To: YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; Wittenburg, Peter <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross <***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hallo Zhu,
    is there a definition of the last two terms: spatial and temporal extent.
    I think that at least in your community there must be some definitions around.
    Correct?
    peter
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peter Wittenburg Tel: +49 2821 49180
    ***@***.*** ; ***@***.***
    RDA Europe Director, RDA TAB Member, EUDAT Scientific Advisor
    Senior Advisor Data Systems, Max Planck Computing and Data Facility
    Gießenbachstraße 2, 85748 Garching, Germany
    http://www.mpcdf.de, http://www.mpcdf.de/~pewi
    former affiliation: MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Von: zhuyq=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von YunqiangZhu
    Gesendet: Montag, 25. Januar 2016 19:32
    An: Wittenburg, Peter; ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Betreff: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Hi Peter,
    Actually, I am unclear the scale of DFIG terms and what are the basic principles of selecting terms. So I try to add some terms I think they are very important to define, describe and use data. Hope it will useful to perfect DFIG terms.
    Best regards,
    ________________________________
    ZHU, Yunqiang Ph.d Professor
    Director, Department for Geo-data Science and Sharing
    Deputy Director,State Key Lab. of Resources and Environmental Information System
    Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
    诸云强 博士 研究员
    中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所
    资源与环境信息系统国家重点实验室 副主任
    地球数据科学与共享研究室 主任
    北京朝阳区大屯路甲11号 100101
    电话/传真:010-64888056
    From: Peter Wittenburg
    Date: 2016-01-25 02:14
    To: ***@***.***-groups.org; Gary Berg-Cross (***@***.***); Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
    Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Dear all,
    i just grabbed all terms I could in DFIG documents and comments so far. I am sure that much is missing.
    But it may give a first impression. Most of the terms are not well-defined and people are using different definitions.
    Please, feel free to add terms and references.
    best
    Peter

submit a comment