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

#129808

All –
Apologies, missed off the complete mailing list; see below
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: 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
On May 26, 2020, at 11:12 AM, rkoskela via Metadata IG wrote:
Dear members of the RDA Metadata IG,
We would like some assistance in determining the priority order of which data elements
should be unpacked first. As you recall, the list of metadata elements was proposed at previous RDA plenary meetings. The current list of 17 high-level elements was identified at the P8 meeting held in Denver, Colorado. The list has been shared with and reviewed by many of the domain groups. The 17 high-level elements need to be unpacked to produce the lists of sub-elements that more closely resemble how the elements might be represented in a real metadata scheme. We would like feedback on the order of elements for the unpacking process.
The most efficient way to do the survey is to check the list of elements at the top of the survey, write down the numbers of the elements in your priority order, and use that list to fill in the survey. It should take you less than 2 minutes to fill in the survey.
Link to survey: https://bit.ly/3emXK0s
Thank you for your assistance,
Rebecca Koskela
Keith Jeffery
Alex Ball

Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/survey-select-priorit
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/69772
========================
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
All –
Apologies, missed off the complete mailing list; see below
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: 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
On May 26, 2020, at 11:12 AM, rkoskela via Metadata IG wrote:
Dear members of the RDA Metadata IG,
We would like some assistance in determining the priority order of which data elements
should be unpacked first. As you recall, the list of metadata elements was proposed at previous RDA plenary meetings. The current list of 17 high-level elements was identified at the P8 meeting held in Denver, Colorado. The list has been shared with and reviewed by many of the domain groups. The 17 high-level elements need to be unpacked to produce the lists of sub-elements that more closely resemble how the elements might be represented in a real metadata scheme. We would like feedback on the order of elements for the unpacking process.
The most efficient way to do the survey is to check the list of elements at the top of the survey, write down the numbers of the elements in your priority order, and use that list to fill in the survey. It should take you less than 2 minutes to fill in the survey.
Link to survey: https://bit.ly/3emXK0s
Thank you for your assistance,
Rebecca Koskela
Keith Jeffery
Alex Ball

Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/survey-select-priorit
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/69772
========================
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