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

02 Feb 2016
Groups audience: 

Thanks Juha.
We need to have a process in RDA to either accept these definitions or come with new ones if necessary and to map the various other terms.
To me this is an urgent action for building a joint vocabulary. I think that either the metadata groups or the DFT IG (or both) should work on this.
Myself I don’t have strong opinions except that I need to be able to fit the terms that are being used in the discussions.
I would be happy if someone could just stand up in Tokyo and present a list without a big story around it so that we can check with everyone whether we have terms that are suitable.
best
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: gbergcross=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von Gary
Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 17:33
An: Hakala, Juha E; rda-cwg-DFT; Data Fabric IG
Cc: Wittenburg, Peter; YunqiangZhu; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***); Keith Jeffery; Rebecca Koskela
Betreff: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
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:
Thanks Juha.
We need to have a process in RDA to either accept these definitions or come with new ones if necessary and to map the various other terms.
To me this is an urgent action for building a joint vocabulary. I think that either the metadata groups or the DFT IG (or both) should work on this.
Myself I don’t have strong opinions except that I need to be able to fit the terms that are being used in the discussions.
I would be happy if someone could just stand up in Tokyo and present a list without a big story around it so that we can check with everyone whether we have terms that are suitable.
best
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: gbergcross=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von Gary
Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Januar 2016 17:33
An: Hakala, Juha E; rda-cwg-DFT; Data Fabric IG
Cc: Wittenburg, Peter; YunqiangZhu; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***); Keith Jeffery; Rebecca Koskela
Betreff: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
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 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
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:
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:peter.wittenburg=***@***.***-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

  • Alan Blatecky's picture

    Author: Alan Blatecky

    Date: 02 Feb, 2016

    Peter
    I think building a joint vocabulary is urgent as well. However, if we aren’t careful, we could find ourselves caught up in endless discussions trying to get precise definitions (that is, "the perfect is the enemy of the good”). We need to get rough consensus so we can spend time on issues other than definitions.

  • Gary Berg-Cross's picture

    Author: Gary Berg-Cross

    Date: 02 Feb, 2016

    I agree with Alan's 2 central points on the need for Joint vocabularies and
    that this needs to
    be done practically in support of solving issues.
    What I think is in turn needed is some mechanism to:
    - surface points of connection between vocabularies and/or vocabularies
    being discussed around issues and
    - some way of getting agreement between the groups using these
    vocabularies.
    It is hard for me to image some magic bullet to do this since it is more an
    integration and conceptual task than an automated mapping task that spits
    out a joint vocabulary. We need to actually meet and discuss things within
    some understood, practical process that might lead to commitment to
    agreements.
    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

submit a comment