RE: [metadata] Launching DPIG Metadata Task Force

Hi, Rob--

Actually, these _are_ the types of comments that I had hoped to accumulate in the wiki. So please add them, prefixed with your name in brackets, so that others can likewise comment. I know both Ivan and I now have comments to add to yours! ;-)

One thing I do want to point out: your focus is from the web/technical side of things, and the need for clarity, interoperability, etc., and you rightly point out the extremely messy situation that presents and the proliferation of schemes etc. that might be relevant.

One other way to look at this-and one that's consistent with the mission of this DPIG-is to say "what metadata do publishers need to incorporate in their documents, and does the OWP give them a way to do that?" Echoing Ivan, that's not a _how_, that's a _what_.

So for bibliographic metadata, I would point you and others to CrossRef, which is the means by which scholarly literature is interlinked. While the DOI is the mechanism behind that (and yes, I know your view of the DOI!), it is the bibliographic metadata _associated_ with the DOI that makes it work. Well, what bibliographic metadata do publishers in general think is needed to "make it work"? HOW it gets made to work is outside the scope of the DPIG; but surfacing the use case from publishers _that_ they want this to work is what we're about. The reason I point to CrossRef is that, at least for journal articles (and increasingly for books) they have evolved a practical complement of bibliographic metadata that is sufficient to "make it work" for what scholars and scholarly publishers need to accomplish. No more than that. Worth looking at.

As to your question regarding the "line" between descriptive and bibliographic: okay, it may be a fuzzy line. I deliberately used generic terms (even avoiding the loaded word "semantic") because I want so focus on the concepts and the use cases, not the technologies, at this stage. Here's a simple top-of-the-head distinction:
--Bibliographic metadata describes what the publication _is_, who authored it, who published it, etc.
--Descriptive metadata describes what the publication is _about_: subject information, primarily.
There is probably a better term than "descriptive" because "describing" is fundamentally what all metadata does, but that's the sense I was using it in.

Most of what I was intending by those distinctions was just to give us some related "buckets" to discuss these issues so there isn't a major mish-mash that becomes impossible to sort out. Mostly based on a MODS-like way of looking at characterizing different types of metadata, but again, keeping it generic, not wanting to make the discussion MODS-driven.

Hope this is helpful. One other comment: I do think that this kind of discussion on the list, complementing the somewhat more structured "discussion" on the wiki, are both important parts of the process.

But to reiterate what I think is fundamental to what we're about here: we need to focus on the what, not so much on the how. What do publishers need to do regarding metadata in the context of the OWP (as opposed to all the other places metadata lives in the ecosystem)?

--Bill Kasdorf

From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:45 AM
To: Bill Kasdorf
Cc: public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: [metadata] Launching DPIG Metadata Task Force


Hi Bill, all,

Rather than clutter the wiki with personal opinions and questions, I'll post them here. If you think they're valuable, I'll copy them over.

* Bibliographic metadata -- There are many, many bibliographic schemas and "standards" out there. All have their issues.  RDA is 1600 properties. Bibframe is looking to be similar, if it ever materializes.  Simple Dublin Core is woefully insufficient. DC Terms isn't as bad as an 80%, but so is Bibo. And then there's non RDF schemas... MARC is ubiquitous in libraries, but arcane and not at all web friendly. MODS, MARC/XML, PRISM, ONIX, etc...

Also, what's the line between Descriptive and Bibliographic?

* Technical metadata -- technical metadata for what? For any resource on the web ... which therefore encompasses absolutely everything?

* Administrative metadata -- Does this mean rights metadata?

* Versioning -- A huge issue by itself.  To self-cite, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7089 was 4 years of work to cover a very, very small portion of this.

* The IG's charter (IIRC) says that it won't create new recommendations -- to work with ONIX (for example) to create an RDF version would mean the creation of a separate Working Group?


So overall, my concern is that nothing useful will get done due to the existing baggage in the domain. Picking something focused is, in my opinion, going to be more productive than trying to even survey what exists across the entire "metadata" landscape.

Rob


On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com<mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>> wrote:
Hi, folks-

First, my apologies for having taken so long to get this activity in motion.

In order to structure and streamline the discussion for this Task Force, we've provided a basic framework on the wiki (http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Task_Forces/Metadata).
Those who volunteered to be members of this Task Force are invited to contribute as they see fit. While discussion on the list is also appropriate and encouraged, we would like to consider the wiki the formal "record" of our discussion going forward. Please put your name in [brackets] at the beginning of anything you add to the wiki.

Others in the DPIG who might want to join this task force are of course still welcome to do so. Please add your name, affiliation, and e-mail as indicated on the wiki and also e-mail us privately to alert us that you've joined.

--Bill Kasdorf (bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com<mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>)
and Madi Solomon (madi.solomon@pearson.com<mailto:madi.solomon@pearson.com>).

Bill Kasdorf
Vice President, Apex Content Solutions
Apex CoVantage
W: +1 734-904-6252<tel:%2B1%20734-904-6252>
M: +1 734-904-6252<tel:%2B1%20734-904-6252>
@BillKasdorf<http://twitter.com/#!/BillKasdorf>
bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com<http://bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
www.apexcovantage.com<http://www.apexcovantage.com/>

[Corporate Logo-Copy]