Re: "metadata" as "data about data"

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
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> .  .  .  .. .  .
>> ..        .   . ..
>> .     ..       .
>>
>
>

-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .