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/

Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element

  • Creator
    Discussion
  • #104168

    Rebecca Koskela
    Participant

    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

  • Author
    Replies
  • #129815

    Dear members of the RDA Metadata Standards Catalog WG,
    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

  • #129813

    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

  • #129812

    That struck me as well, though we call it name, synonyms, and
    abbreviations, but I think that it is the same idea.
    Regards,
    anita
    On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:07 PM graybeal via Metadata IG <
    ***@***.***-groups.org> wrote:

  • #129811

    Dear all,
    may I suggest that the people who set up the Metadata Element Priorities questionnaire quickly go in and edit it, appending a free-text optional comments field at the end – this would allow people to add e.g. their ideas for more metadata fields, or add any other suggestions. (I find it a good principle to always allow questionnaire respondents such a possibility, especially if no other contact information is given in the introductory text!)
    Also: prompted by the posts by John and Anita, I’ve just added “Title/short name” to the “Gaps to consider” document at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HGnx1Cd0Rs0tu6HW_bIUSq7WjZdAt1xowAjt…. (This file appears to have been created in 2017, but up to now it seems no one has added anything!) However, I didn’t have any “use case” in mind, other than – so I hope there are some volunteers who could be persuaded to add some useful context here!
    Cheers,
    Maggie
    ——————
    Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    ***@***.***
    Lund University
    Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
    ________________________________
    – Show quoted text -From: ***@***.***-groups.org on behalf of rkoskela via Metadata IG
    Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 20:12
    To: Metadata IG
    Subject: [rda-metadata-ig] Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element
    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

  • #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

  • #129796

    Maggie,
    I’ve implemented your suggestion – it’s the last question on the survey.
    If those who have already submitted the survey would like
    to use this option, you could go to the survey and just submit a response
    to the last question.
    Best,
    Rebecca
    On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 1:41 AM Maggie.Hellstrom via Metadata IG <
    ***@***.***-groups.org> wrote:

  • #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

  • #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

Log in to reply.