- From: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 23:03:09 -0300
- To: Giancarlo Guizzardi <gguizzardi@gmail.com>
- Cc: Pieter Colpaert <pieter.colpaert@ugent.be>, "public-dwbp-comments@w3.org" <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+pXJigia99xWReNxo8TQ3tQZ2JPqpOeaY9ODDxVbUCC-9AWwg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi, Giancarlo, MEANING here has to cover things like licenses, rights, update frequencies, etc. Many readers could understand meaning as a thing related, for example, only to the structure. I prefer the simple definition that metadata is data about data. Is what the meta prefix means. I guess most people could understand this (with few examples). Best regards, Laufer Em quinta-feira, 5 de março de 2015, Giancarlo Guizzardi < gguizzardi@gmail.com> escreveu: > Folks, > > A lot of confusion seems to also come from the fact that we have > not specified what data is or what is the ontological status > of the entities that are referred to by our models...andI am not > suggesting > that we should get into that discussion here. > > If we don't make our ontological commitments explicit, > linguistic/logical criteria won't suffice to make any meaningful general > claim > about this distinction. In other words, it is not hard to blur the line. > > That said, from a radically pragmatic point of view, and for this > particular case, can't we just say that metadata is data about the > datasets? whereas Datasets (as the name suggests) are sets of data items. > > If we start discussing the philosophical underpinnings, I am > afraid that we will be here for a while. For instance, without > a radically pragmatic spirit, one could easily question the > immediately succeeding sentence: "It provides additional > information that helps consumers better understand the MEANING of data". > > best, > Giancarlo > > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','laufer@globo.com');>> wrote: > >> a thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing. >> >> it's all about metadata. >> >> best, >> Laufer >> >> Em quinta-feira, 5 de março de 2015, Pieter Colpaert < >> pieter.colpaert@ugent.be >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pieter.colpaert@ugent.be');>> escreveu: >> >> Yet, as true geeks with awful humour we should use the definition: >>> >>> metadata is a word with 8 letters [1] >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Pieter >>> >>> [1] https://twitter.com/DataScienceBe/status/570794661339648001 >>> >>> >>> On 2015-03-05 23:00, Makx Dekkers wrote: >>> >>> Getting back to Dan’s original comment, I honestly think that trying >>> to say more than “metadata is data about data” is bound to get us into >>> philosophical discussions. Of course there are no absolutes, but the >>> sentence as written very concisely says that it is a matter of intention. >>> Metadata is called metadata because its intention is to say something about >>> something else where the “something else” is the primary concern. The >>> sentence has been used since I don’t know when; sometimes this >>> philosophical discussion comes up, and in the end, I am pretty sure, we’ll >>> stick with the ‘data about data’. >>> >>> >>> >>> Makx. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *De:* Steven Adler [mailto:adler1@us.ibm.com] >>> *Enviado el:* 05 March 2015 19:38 >>> *Para:* João Paulo Almeida >>> *CC:* Christophe Guéret; Dan Brickley; João Paulo Almeida; >>> public-dwbp-comments@w3.org; Ralph Swick >>> *Asunto:* Re: "metadata" as "data about data" >>> >>> >>> >>> "works for google" is an attribute of Dan Brickley. The metadata would >>> be the field name of which the attribute would be recorded. >>> >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again" >>> >>> [image: Inactive hide details for João Paulo Almeida ---03/05/2015 >>> 12:25:04 PM---Dan, I see your point, … In my perspective, the state]João >>> Paulo Almeida ---03/05/2015 12:25:04 PM---Dan, I see your point, … In my >>> perspective, the statement “Dan Brickley is the >>> >>> From: >>> >>> >>> João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org> >>> >>> To: >>> >>> >>> Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> >>> >>> Cc: >>> >>> >>> Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>, Ralph Swick < >>> swick@w3.org>, "public-dwbp-comments@w3.org" < >>> public-dwbp-comments@w3.org> >>> >>> Date: >>> >>> >>> 03/05/2015 12:25 PM >>> >>> Subject: >>> >>> >>> Re: "metadata" as "data about data" >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dan, >>> >>> I see your point, … In my perspective, the statement “Dan Brickley is the >>> creator of this particular data item” is metadata (it encodes a >>> proposition about data). In contrast, “Dan Brickley works for Google” is >>> not (it does not encode a proposition about data). >>> >>> This does not mean that metadata and non-metadata cannot be used >>> together, >>> in which case the conjunction of both statements may be relevant to >>> characterize a data item as you suggest. Thus the statement “The creator >>> of this data item is employed by Google” is metadata. >>> >>> To me, considering “Dan Brickley works for Google” as metadata because it >>> may be used together with metadata is what causes the confusion. I hope >>> we >>> can find some way to clarify this. I don’t feel the disclaimer you >>> suggested will do the job. >>> >>> Regards, >>> João Paulo >>> >>> >>> On 5/3/15, 2:00 PM, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> >On 5 March 2015 at 16:55, João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org> >>> wrote: >>> >> Dear Dan, >>> >> >>> >> I don¹t see how the statement ³Dan Brickley works for Google² could be >>> >> interpreted as metadata in our definition (nor in other >>> >>meaningful/useful >>> >> definition for metadata). Can you please clarify? >>> > >>> >If it appeared in the context of provenance information for a >>> >collection of files, describing the creator of those files, then >>> >conventionally this would be considered "metadata". It provides data >>> >about data - specifically who the employer of the creator of the data >>> >might be. But I don't want to argue the point, if your experience of >>> >the word "metadata" has been different to mine, you may have different >>> >intuitions. >>> > >>> >Dan >>> > >>> >> Regards, >>> >> João Paulo >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 5/3/15, 1:48 PM, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@google.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>>On 5 March 2015 at 16:43, Joao Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Would you please provide an example where the text we use could lead >>> >>>>to >>> >>>> conceptual confusion? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I don't understand the disclaimer suggested by Dan. What is meant by >>> >>>> "absolute" distinction? >>> >>> >>> >>>The idea is that a statement like "Dan Brickley works for Google" is >>> >>>not inherently metadata versus data. It can be considered data, or >>> >>>considered metadata, depending on context and application. Therefore >>> >>>we should be careful not to give people the idea that there exists any >>> >>>deep important distinction between the two. In a 1990s context, this >>> >>>explained the very general approach taken in the RDF design. In the >>> >>>context of your document, the value is not so much that it would avoid >>> >>>conceptual confusion, but rather that it avoids presenting a >>> >>>(naturally) confusing distinction as a clear one. >>> >>> >>> >>>Dan >>> >>> >>> >>>> best regards, >>> >>>> João Paulo >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> >>> >>>>wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On 5 March 2015 at 16:20, Christophe Guéret >>> >>>>> <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl> wrote: >>> >>>>> > Hi Dan, >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > Thanks for this! Funny thing is that I was sitting in a meeting >>> >>>>>with >>> >>>>>KOS >>> >>>>> > people today and when I asked them to comment on our document >>> they >>> >>>>>also >>> >>>>> > pointed out that this definition of metadata would not fit >>> >>>>>everyone. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Some debates are destined to go on forever :) Thanks for >>> considering >>> >>>>> the suggestion... >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Dan >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> . . . .. . . >> .. . . .. >> . .. . >> > > -- . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. .
Attachments
Received on Friday, 6 March 2015 02:03:40 UTC