Skip to main content

Notice

We are in the process of rolling out a soft launch of the RDA website, which includes a new member platform. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: https://rda-login.wicketcloud.com/users/confirmation. Visitors may encounter functionality issues with group pages, navigation, missing content, broken links, etc. As you explore the new site, please provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Thank you for your understanding and support as we work through all issues as quickly as possible. Stay updated about upcoming features and functionalities: https://www.rd-alliance.org/rda-web-platform-upcoming-features-and-functionalities/

Homepage Forums Metadata IG Main Forum Metadata IG Posts Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element

#129793

Keith,
Thanks, I wondered if the sub-elements was the answer to the question. That all makes sense now, I apologize for taking you all down a confusing path.
I think what is tricky is that there is a link for each metadata element in the survey, and it takes the clicker to a page defining Description in a very general way. This is confusing for people who assume that’s authoritative, and/or haven’t been involved with the work your group has been doing. Maybe some introductory text in the survey could clarify the categorical nature and use ‘Title’ as an example, if not already there.
Good luck with the survey!
John
– Show quoted text -From: Keith Jeffery
Sent: 27 May 2020 10:00
To: ***@***.***; ***@***.***
Subject: RE: [rda-metadata-ig] Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element
John, all –
Many thanks for the emails concerning ‘Title’.
I note Rebecca replied already with links to various bits of history since RDA Plenary 2 (Washington). MIG has been active for > 7 years (initial discussions at Gothenburg) so there has been a lot of history!
If I may be permitted to explain a little more: the short answer is that the Description Element is meant to be a container with sub-elements (like most of the other elements). The Description element could include Title (or Name or Subject), Abstract and any other sub-elements the community wanted; that has been the purpose of discussions at MIG meetings at RDA plenaries and material in the various google docs (one per element) between plenaries.
Keywords is a separate element because the community (i.e. those RDA members who attended MIG meetings, placed text into the google docs or corresponded in other ways) believed (rightly in my opinion) that there is a difference between keywords from a controlled ontology (vocabulary/thesaurus) and ‘free text’ material as expected in the Description element.
Looking at other elements it is clear they have some degree of complexity. Provenance, for example, can be very complex with an extensive syntax and semantics. The same is true of Quality, and most of the other elements – excepting Unique Identifier (although federated IDs may be necessary i.e. multiple IDs referring to the same object) and Location (of the described asset, usually as a URL).
Hence Description was considered to have a similar level of complexity to the other elements if it had sub-elements including things like Title, Abstract…. and possibly “intended purpose” and other less formal information that may be of use especially in the ‘F’ of FAIR.
The general direction of travel of the community thinking, has been to get away from simple attributes or properties (punched card columns mode of thinking as someone put it) and to allow much richer metadata – as required for machine-to-machine processing as well as human – configured as a fully connected graph of relationships between (sub-)elements using formal syntax and declared semantics.
However, the whole purpose of the RDA metadata element set discussion was to come up with whatever consensus the community could achieve – hence the forum for discussion provided by MIG in and between plenaries.
With best wishes
Keith
——————————————————————————–
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: ***@***.***
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
———————————————————————————————————————————-
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: ***@***.***-groups.org
Sent: 26 May 2020 20:03
To: ***@***.***; Metadata IG
Subject: Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element
Filled it out, interesting to think about it.
Not having been a member at previous discussions, I was pretty shocked Title did not appear in the list, as I would have put it #2. Likely I am missing something.
Is there a single document you can point me to that summarizes what “the current list” represents? Metadata elements for what content types and what end uses?
John
========================
John Graybeal
Technical Program Manager
Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal
Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research
650-736-1632 | ORCID 0000-0001-6875-5360
Keith,
Thanks, I wondered if the sub-elements was the answer to the question. That all makes sense now, I apologize for taking you all down a confusing path.
I think what is tricky is that there is a link for each metadata element in the survey, and it takes the clicker to a page defining Description in a very general way. This is confusing for people who assume that’s authoritative, and/or haven’t been involved with the work your group has been doing. Maybe some introductory text in the survey could clarify the categorical nature and use ‘Title’ as an example, if not already there.
Good luck with the survey!
John
From: Keith Jeffery
Sent: 27 May 2020 10:00
To: ***@***.***; ***@***.***
Subject: RE: [rda-metadata-ig] Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element
John, all –
Many thanks for the emails concerning ‘Title’.
I note Rebecca replied already with links to various bits of history since RDA Plenary 2 (Washington). MIG has been active for > 7 years (initial discussions at Gothenburg) so there has been a lot of history!
If I may be permitted to explain a little more: the short answer is that the Description Element is meant to be a container with sub-elements (like most of the other elements). The Description element could include Title (or Name or Subject), Abstract and any other sub-elements the community wanted; that has been the purpose of discussions at MIG meetings at RDA plenaries and material in the various google docs (one per element) between plenaries.
Keywords is a separate element because the community (i.e. those RDA members who attended MIG meetings, placed text into the google docs or corresponded in other ways) believed (rightly in my opinion) that there is a difference between keywords from a controlled ontology (vocabulary/thesaurus) and ‘free text’ material as expected in the Description element.
Looking at other elements it is clear they have some degree of complexity. Provenance, for example, can be very complex with an extensive syntax and semantics. The same is true of Quality, and most of the other elements – excepting Unique Identifier (although federated IDs may be necessary i.e. multiple IDs referring to the same object) and Location (of the described asset, usually as a URL).
Hence Description was considered to have a similar level of complexity to the other elements if it had sub-elements including things like Title, Abstract…. and possibly “intended purpose” and other less formal information that may be of use especially in the ‘F’ of FAIR.
The general direction of travel of the community thinking, has been to get away from simple attributes or properties (punched card columns mode of thinking as someone put it) and to allow much richer metadata – as required for machine-to-machine processing as well as human – configured as a fully connected graph of relationships between (sub-)elements using formal syntax and declared semantics.
However, the whole purpose of the RDA metadata element set discussion was to come up with whatever consensus the community could achieve – hence the forum for discussion provided by MIG in and between plenaries.
With best wishes
Keith
——————————————————————————–
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: ***@***.***
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
———————————————————————————————————————————-
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: ***@***.***-groups.org
Sent: 26 May 2020 20:03
To: ***@***.***; Metadata IG
Subject: Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element
Filled it out, interesting to think about it.
Not having been a member at previous discussions, I was pretty shocked Title did not appear in the list, as I would have put it #2. Likely I am missing something.
Is there a single document you can point me to that summarizes what “the current list” represents? Metadata elements for what content types and what end uses?
John
========================
John Graybeal
Technical Program Manager
Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal
Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research
650-736-1632 | ORCID 0000-0001-6875-5360