Re: "metadata" as "data about data"

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"
>
> Inactive hide details for João Paulo Almeida ---03/05/2015 12:25:04 
> PM---Dan, I see your point, … In my perspective, the stateJoão 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 <mailto:jpalmeida@ieee.org>>
>
> To:
>
>  
>
>
> Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com <mailto:danbri@google.com>>
>
> Cc:
>
>  
>
>
> Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl 
> <mailto:christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org 
> <mailto:swick@w3.org>>, "public-dwbp-comments@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>" <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:danbri@google.com>> wrote:
>
> >On 5 March 2015 at 16:55, João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org <mailto: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 <mailto:danbri@google.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 5 March 2015 at 16:43, Joao Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org <mailto: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 <mailto:danbri@google.com>>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 5 March 2015 at 16:20, Christophe Guéret
> >>>>> <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl 
> <mailto: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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>