Re: Best Practice 4 (Document Metadata) - I agree to suppress it

Hi, Carlos,

> BP4 is about documenting what metadata terms are you finally using

Terms are parts of a vocabulary.

And we will have a whole section about vocabularies.

Metadata is documenting data. Then, metadata should be documented. These
documents about metadata are metadata of metadata. We should take care
about an infinite chain.

If we talk about documents for machines, we are talking about vocabularies.
And section 7.
4 will take care of this.

If we are talking about humans, metadata is the documentation. Have a
documentation about metadata is mandatory. If metadata does not have a
documentation, it does not have a meaning. For example, If one says that
the dataset has a GNU license, how this can be understood by a human if GNU
is not documented? The meaning is the documentation and must exist if
someone decides to refer to it.

In respect to code lists, (maybe this is not the formal definition) I think
they are a kind of type, or even a kind of vocabulary. Again, I think
section 7.4 is a better candidate to talk about this.

Best regards,
Laufer



Em terça-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2015, Carlos Iglesias <
contact@carlosiglesias.es> escreveu:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Here goes my view on this:
>
> - I tend to disagree on (former) BP4 being derived from BP1+2+3
>
> BP1 is on metadata availability (provide metadata)
> BP2 is on human vs. machine readable metadata (how to present metadata)
> BP3 is reusing generic standard metadata terms when possible (i.e. dc,
> foaf and the like)
> BP4 is about documenting what metadata terms (being reused or ad-hoc) are
> you finally using
>
> I don't see overlap between any of the above.
>
> - WRT BP11 Document vocabularies
>
> I don't see any overlap with (fomer) BP4 either as:
>
> BP4 is about documenting what metadata terms are you finally using
> BP11 is about documenting your data (not metadata) models (or
> "vocabularies") in the case you are developing new ones.
>
> - Finally WRT Annette's comments I think there is a missing point here:
> BPXX Document your data
>
> This is about the "data codebooks" that should be accompanying our data as
> additional documentation but unfortunately are rarely available making
> working with 3rd party data a pain. This "codebooks" usually document all
> the information that Annette is refereeing to in her message and more.
>
> Best,
>  CI.
>
> On 20 January 2015 at 21:00, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','amgreiner@lbl.gov');>> wrote:
>
>> Here are a few things that come to mind as needing to be documented in
>> metadata.
>> Units, for any measure that is not unitless.
>> For responses to a survey question, the question itself and how it was
>> coded. (This is where code lists come in.)
>> Meaning of nulls, zeroes, NA, etc.
>> language, locale (we have this one covered elsewhere, but probably it
>> should be included under the more general BP.)
>>
>> I think the metadata information right now is a little bit redundant.
>> Documenting metadata is really the same as providing metadata. When we have
>> generalized the BP about documenting, it will be even more like the one
>> about providing metadata. In both cases, we are talking about using good
>> metadata to describe the data and making it available to data consumers.
>> -Annette
>> --
>> Annette Greiner
>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>> 510-495-2935
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 5:16 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bfl@cin.ufpe.br');>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The Document metadata BP should be rewritten to become more general,
>> > i.e., not just vocabularies should be documented. In this case, what
>> > else should be documented when talking about metadata?
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ---
>
> Carlos Iglesias.
> Internet & Web Consultant.
> +34 687 917 759
> contact@carlosiglesias.es
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','contact@carlosiglesias.es');>
> @carlosiglesias
> http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en
>


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