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

#129699

Members of the RDA Metadata IG,
We wanted to send a reminder to those who haven’t yet taken the survey to
select the priority of the RDA Metadata Elements to please do the survey.
*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 *
In addition, our last email generated an interesting discussion on why
Title was missing from the element set. In reality, it isn’t but this
helped us to understand that there needs to be a better explanation of the
metadata element set. The email responses certainly assisted in clarifying
some of the thinking that has happened in MIG over the years. We hope such
discussion improves the element set – both conceptually and as documented. A
good example of how the high-level elements can be unpacked is Description
. The Description Element is a container with
sub-elements (like most of the other elements), which 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 (terms) 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 that there is
a difference between keywords from a controlled ontology
(vocabulary/thesaurus) and ‘free text’ material as expected in the
Description element.
The general direction 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.
We want to encourage everyone to comment in the googledocs for each element
so – hopefully – we can soon reach a RDA community consensus and start to
utilize the canonical rich element set (with defined syntax and semantics)
to support FAIR.
Thank you,
Rebecca Koskela
Keith Jeffery
Alex Ball