RE: dwbp-ISSUE-79 (metatype): Discovery vs structural metadata [Best practices document(s)]

Hi Makx,

Sounds like a very  good plan! Could we maybe just recommend some
vocabulary to use for each of those bullet point?

Christophe

--
Sent with difficulties. Sorry for the brievety and typos...
Op 8 nov. 2014 09:38 schreef "Makx Dekkers" <mail@makxdekkers.com>:

> All,
>
>
>
> This morning, I’ve been trying to dig up the discussion about metadata in
> the minutes of the F2F in San José. Although it is sometimes hard to
> understand from the log what was said and why, the impression I get is that
> we seem to get into some fundamental discussions about what metadata is,
> what kinds of metadata are relevant, and what metadata should be provided
> in an ideal world.
>
>
>
> Although I do think these are very interesting topics – after all, I have
> been participating in similar discussions for a couple of decades ;) – I
> fear we might not reach consensus on a practical level any time soon. I
> would suggest to take it from a different angle, and look at what kind of
> advice publishers of data would be looking for.
>
>
>
> In my mind, the best practice for metadata should give some simple
> guidelines on the highest level.
>
>
>
> Something like:
>
>
>
> ·         Provide as much information about the data as you possibly can.
>
>
>
> ·         Try to provide at least information about:
>
>
>
> o   What the data represents
>
> o   Where it is
>
> o   Who is responsible for it
>
> o   How the data is (technically) expressed
>
> o   What you can do with the data
>
>
>
> ·         Publish metadata with a level of quality and granularity, and
> in a format that is expected to be useful for the intended audience. On
> this issue, we need to acknowledge that specific applications may need
> specific metadata that is not covered by a general standard like DCAT.
> Maybe we can suggest that publishers use DCAT for general properties, or
> alternatively, map to DCAT from similar properties in a domain-specific,
> application-specific or resource-specific metadata approach.
>
>
>
> If we can work towards such a top-level set of recommendations, people who
> feel like it can spend time – and lots of it ;) – to dig deeper into
> defining types of metadata, identifying specific properties needed for
> specific types of usage, building application profiles for provenance data,
> etc., etc. This additional detail may still be in scope for the working
> group, but maybe we can move this to a later time.
>
>
>
> And please, let’s not try to define mandatory minimum sets of metadata
> properties. My experience is that for almost every property you declare
> mandatory, someone can come up with a valid case where the information
> cannot be provided. Even in the five bullets above, some publishers might
> not have information about every category, but we should not discourage
> publication of that data – users might not care about missing information
> or they might have other ways to find out the bits of information that are
> missing.
>
>
>
> Makx.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Christophe Guéret [mailto:christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl]
> *Sent:* Friday, November 07, 2014 9:23 AM
> *To:* Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group
> *Subject:* Re: dwbp-ISSUE-79 (metatype): Discovery vs structural metadata
> [Best practices document(s)]
>
>
>
> Hoi,
>
> Digital archives also define several type of metadata (not sure how many).
> Would it be a good idea to align this with their definitions?
>
> Regards,
> Christophe
>
> --
> Sent with difficulties. Sorry for the brievety and typos...
>
> Op 6 nov. 2014 22:22 schreef "Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group
> Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>:
>
> dwbp-ISSUE-79 (metatype): Discovery vs structural metadata [Best practices
> document(s)]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/79
>
> Raised by: Phil Archer
> On product: Best practices document(s)
>
> At TPAC we made the distinction between discovery metadata and structural
> metadata. This needs to be reflected in the BPs.
>
>
>