W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > June 2014

Re: [BP - MET] Fwd: Meta-data types

From: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:46:37 -0300
Message-ID: <CA+pXJij8bPpuMU4uApj+nBmgjs=6gLJmLa-KgZvE0i0v97y3Pw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>
Cc: DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Maarten Hoogerwerf <maarten.hoogerwerf@dans.knaw.nl>
Hello, Christophe, Maarten, all,

Christophe, thank you for asking Maarten to comment the document.

Maarten, thank you for your comments.

My comments:

·      it> its viewpoint is different than the preservation viewpoint,
leading to another type of categorisation.

We can have a lot of different categorizations chemes.  We can group
metadata types in different schemes, as for example, descriptive,
structural, and administrative, as you pointed. But I think that the types,
per si, are more specific. My intention was to think about metadata from a
task point of view. We are treating Data as a standalone entity without
thinking that at some point these Data would be used in some task. And only
at this point we could know, with certainty, what would be the metadata
that should or must be provided to the user in a way that she could choose
and use it in a proper way. What are the metadata that are useful to help
users in doing the tasks? We have an ecosystem around Data with actors
playing roles and demanding tasks. At some point, independently of the
categorization scheme being used, we would have to define the metadata
types, as for example, provenance, license. etc. We can categorize a
metadata type in more than one categorization scheme. IMHO, the most
important  is to define the specific metadata types.


·      I > I would replace “Use” by “Access”. Given the web-scope, you may
not say anything on usage other than someone accessing it.

I agree that to Use Data one have to Access Data. But things like format,
for example, are not an Access issue. It is a thing related to understand
the semantic of data, and to Use it in a proper way. Data scheme, for
example, is related to Use, not to Access.


> Using the same reasoning, I wonder whether you can make any assumption on
the broker. In that case, the metadata types for Search should contain
-ANY- kind of property imaginable. I’m thinking whether e.g. context is
represented. In SOA environments there are brokers that allow searching on
a specific API/service. This would make all metadata under “use” also
relevant for “search”.

Yes. This is true but this is not a problem of this task categorization
scheme. We never know all the things that someone wants, or should, or must
know before choosing something. What we are doing in the group is trying to
guess the more as we can.

> In general, the overview lacks a clear scope, leading to an unlimited
amount of thoughts, questions, etc.

I agree. But the lack of a clear scope and the unlimited amount of thoughts
and questions is a problem that the WG has since its beginning, and it is
independent of this categorization scheme. They are intrinsic to the
problem. Data on the Web is a big issue and it is difficult to have a clear
scope and to avoid the huge amount of thoughts and questions.


Thank you, again, for your comments.

Best Regards,
Laufer



2014-06-10 10:01 GMT-03:00 Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl
>:

> Hi Laufer, all,
>
> As promised, I've been out asking an expert on meta-data types to look at
> the document and provide some insights on the different type of meta-data
> we should consider for the BPs. His reply, from a data preservation point
> of view, follows. I've also included him in Cc for further discussion.
>
> Cheers,
> Christophe
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Maarten Hoogerwerf <maarten.hoogerwerf@dans.knaw.nl>
> Date: 10 June 2014 14:53
> Subject: Re: Meta-data types
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
> Apologies, this email skipped my attention for a while.
>
> The 3 most significant metadata types are (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata_standards, which refers to NISO
> http://www.niso.org/publications/press/UnderstandingMetadata.pdf)
> * descriptive metadata
> * structural metadata
> * administrative metadata
> From there, you could distinct e.g. preservation metadata within
> administrative metadata.
>
> Beware that there are different opinions on such types of metadata, as
> explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata#Metadata_types.
>
> Many thoughts after a quick look at the document that you refer to:
> * its viewpoint is different than the preservation viewpoint, leading to
> another type of categorisation.
> * I would replace “Use” by “Access”. Given the web-scope, you may not say
> anything on usage other than someone accessing it.
> * Using the same reasoning, I wonder whether you can make any assumption
> on the broker. In that case, the metadata types for Search should contain
> -ANY- kind of property imaginable. I’m thinking whether e.g. context is
> represented. In SOA environments there are brokers that allow searching on
> a specific API/service. This would make all metadata under “use” also
> relevant for “search”.
> * In general, the overview lacks a clear scope, leading to an unlimited
> amount of thoughts, questions, etc.
>
> Best regards,
> Maarten
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 28 May 2014, at 16:20, Christophe Guéret <
> christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi René, Maarten,
>
> I remember one of you once explained me that there are many types of
> meta-data that are used for different purposes. In this document, Laufer
> started to list some of them but there are surely many others we miss:
> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Guidance_on_the_Provision_of_Metadata
>
> Could you please point me to a doc that lists all the meta-data type, and
> eventually tell me what you think of that document if you have enough time
> to have a look at it ?
>
> Groet,
> Christophe
>
> --
> Onderzoeker
> +31(0)6 14576494
> christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl
>
> *Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)*
> DANS bevordert duurzame toegang tot digitale onderzoeksgegevens. Kijk op
> www.dans.knaw.nl voor meer informatie. DANS is een instituut van KNAW en
> NWO.
>
> Let op, per 1 januari hebben we een nieuw adres:
> DANS | Anna van Saksenlaan 51 | 2593 HW Den Haag | Postbus 93067 | 2509 AB
> Den Haag | +31 70 349 44 50 | info@dans.knaw.nl <info@dans.kn> |
> www.dans.knaw.nl
>
> *Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web!*
> http://worldwidesemanticweb.org/
>
> *e-Humanities Group (KNAW)*
> [image: eHumanities] <http://www.ehumanities.nl/>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Onderzoeker
> +31(0)6 14576494
> christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl
>
> *Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)*
>
> DANS bevordert duurzame toegang tot digitale onderzoeksgegevens. Kijk op
> www.dans.knaw.nl voor meer informatie. DANS is een instituut van KNAW en
> NWO.
>
>
> Let op, per 1 januari hebben we een nieuw adres:
>
> DANS | Anna van Saksenlaan 51 | 2593 HW Den Haag | Postbus 93067 | 2509 AB
> Den Haag | +31 70 349 44 50 | info@dans.knaw.nl <info@dans.kn> |
> www.dans.knaw.nl
>
>
> *Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web!*
> http://worldwidesemanticweb.org/
>
> *e-Humanities Group (KNAW)*
> [image: eHumanities] <http://www.ehumanities.nl/>
>



-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2014 19:47:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:24:14 UTC