- From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:00:03 -0800
- To: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
- Cc: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>, DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
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> 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? >
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 20:01:52 UTC