[openbiblio-dev] Open Metadata Handbook
Antoine Isaac
aisaac at few.vu.nl
Thu Dec 15 10:11:38 UTC 2011
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for the explanations. When I read your emails and the draft, my first reaction (a bit caricatured) was "why are they embarked on this?!?". I find in your mail some elements that are crucial for the understanding of all this, which are quite missing in the current draft--or not emphasized enough.
In particular, I find it really important to focus on the requirements of scenarios like public domain calculation.
Of course you may argue that if you want to promote metadata openly, which is a goal of OKFN, then it's better if it's interoperable. Both at technical and higher levels (ie., machine but also people get a chance to understand it).
The problem is that without a specific scenario, it seems a bit of ill attempt. Chances are high, that would you would end up just re-inventing Dublin Core or other things. (if you start from the bibliographic domain, which is again something I'd highly recommend).
Now, if you have a need, which is no longer only "we want open metadata" but "we want metadata that serves open access to documents", that sounds a better starting point. OKFN, as the business owner of that scenario, becomes entitled to make recommendations. And it is then entitled to write some stuff about how to match these recommendations with the data as expressed according to the many standards around.
I don't have the feeling that the current draft is written that way. For example:
"The goal is to produce something that can be given to various GLAM [...] to help them set up a proper metadata model for their works."
"The purpose of this section is to help GLAM institutions decide what is the best standard to use for the description of their works."
All this reads like you want to teach granny to suck eggs. And that won't help your document be appreciated in a domain which is already quite suffering from over-documentation and many standards.
Cheers,
Antoine
> Dear Antoine,
>
> Thank you so much for all of your feedback, which is really valuable.
> We'd really like to collaborate with you on this if possible.
>
> To briefly explain where the current Open Metadata Handbook is coming from:
>
> * We have been working on a set of algorithms to assist people in
> finding out whether a given work is in the public domain in their
> jurisdiction [1]. We've been working on this for several years.
> Europeana Connect has also done work in this area.
> * In order to do public domain calculation you can either do (i)
> manual calculation (where people input relevant data to determine
> status) or (ii) (semi-)automated calculation (where structured data
> from a variety of sources may be used to provide data to determine
> status). We are interested in collecting more data from more sources
> to help with (ii). This is where we are coming from on this project.
> * The OKF has quite a bit of data (e.g. from BBC, from British
> Library), and hope that when Europeana data is released under CC0
> (next June?) then we will be able to use this as well.
> * The Open Metadata Handbook is intended to be a *very* preliminary
> go at mapping metadata structures that are used by different
> institutions, organisations and projects. We want to have a rough and
> ready document that helps people navigate the huge amount of work that
> has done in this area - and builds on this rather than attempting to
> duplicate it. In the medium term this is intended to be driven by
> practitioners in the GLAM sector who are more knowledgeable than we
> are about different standards and different technologies.
> * I fully agree with you that: (i) there is hubris in trying to do a
> 'universal metadata guide' that is all things to all people, (ii) we
> would do well to make a guide which is accessible for and useful to
> non-technical users, as well as non-specialists who are interested in
> consuming open data, perhaps from a variety of different sources, who
> know nothing about metadata standards.
>
> Hence I suggest that we:
>
> * Add a note about who this intended for in a preface to the book
> * Go through each section with a view to making it easier for
> non-technical people and non-experts to understand
>
> We just had a very successful workshop on legal aspects of open data
> in London last month [2], and we're planning a follow up event for
> early next year, perhaps at the V&A. Would you be interested in
> participating in something about metadata standards?
>
> All the best,
>
> Jonathan
>
> [1] http://publicdomain.okfn.org/calculators/
> [2] http://blog.okfn.org/2011/11/01/open-data-in-cultural-heritage-finding-your-way-through-the-license-labyrinth-london-24th-november-2011/
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Antoine Isaac<aisaac at few.vu.nl> wrote:
>> Dear Primavera,
>>
>> Thanks for the answer!
>>
>> EuropeanaLibraries will produce in fact produce a deliverable this month, on
>> their own metadata profile. Valentine Charles and Robina Clayphan (cc'ed)
>> are involved in this, they will take care of forwarding this to you then.
>> Depending on how this can be used in your own report or not, further
>> collaboration may happen!
>>
>> I must admit I am still a bit skeptical about the scope of the Handbook,
>> however. The idea of providing an overview on various categories of creative
>> works is seducing, but this has been tried already. And most often, the
>> complexity and great variety of issues at hand results in unpalatable
>> documents, unless some drastic re-scoping has happened before.
>>
>> Similarly, if the Handbook is a meant to be a rather non-technical document,
>> then you should be careful that all parts are written with this in mind. I
>> have seen bits in the current version, for example on RDF databases, which
>> do not really fit that goal.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>>
>>> Hi Antoine,
>>> thanks for coming back to me, and I hope you enjoyed your holiday ;)
>>> The europeana-libraries project is a really great initiative, do you think
>>> they would be interested in collaborating with us? and how do you think they
>>> could contribute to the Open Metadata Handbook ?
>>>
>>> As for your concerns, which I believe are shared amongst others, I will
>>> try to provide a short explanation:
>>>
>>> The guide is not meant to be a technical / detailled guide on how to
>>> release open bibliographic metadata, rather, it is meant to be a simple and
>>> user-friendly guide that we can hand out to various GLAM institutions who
>>> have not yet released their metadata in an open and interroperable format.
>>>
>>> We do not want to provide detailled instructions, but only a document that
>>> can guide them into selecting the proper format / standard / or protocol for
>>> releasing their bibliographic data.
>>> This is achieved by (a) providing a list of standards with their
>>> respective advantages and drawbacks, together with a list of institutions
>>> that uses them (who uses what), and (b) a decision tree where different data
>>> providers can answer simple questions in order to find out what are
>>> best-practices for them, in terms of exchange format and metadata format.
>>>
>>> The scope of the Handbook is so broad because we thought it would be
>>> better to provide a general overview for different categories of works and
>>> different types of institutions, rather than a detailled set of instructions
>>> for only one type of work. I'm not sure if you agree with that, I'd be happy
>>> to hear your opinion..
>>>
>>> Finally, as opposed to the work undertaken by e.g. the DC Library
>>> application profile, the Open Metadata Handbook is much less technical and
>>> is merely an initiative aimed at encouraging GLAM institutions to release
>>> their data in an open and interroperable format, rather than at providing
>>> them with the technical specifications of the proper format to use.
>>>
>>> I hope this clarifies your concerns a bit, please let me know what you
>>> think about it and how you think you could help us out ! :)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Primavera
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, I wonder what is the specificity induced by "openness" in this
>>> work--in other words, why would such metadata spec effort be carried out by
>>> the Open Biblio group. Especially, what would be the relation/difference
>>> with work undertaken as part of say, the Dublin Core Library application
>>> profile (http://dublincore.org/__documents/library-application-__profile/
>>> <http://dublincore.org/documents/library-application-profile/>) ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Antoine Isaac<aisaac at few.vu.nl
>>> <mailto:aisaac at few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Primavera,
>>>
>>> First, sorry for the delay, I was on a quite long holiday.
>>>
>>> Second, thanks for the ping. In fact I'm suscribed to the
>>> openbiblio-dev list, so I was already aware of your efforts.
>>> And if there's room for us, we'll be gladly considering your offer(s).
>>> Especially, there is a Europeana-related project
>>> (http://www.europeana-__libraries.eu/<http://www.europeana-libraries.eu/>)
>>> that could be in position to make relevant contributions.
>>>
>>>
>>> However, I have to admit that I share some of the doubts that were
>>> raised on the list recently--a reason why I did not enter the discussion
>>> sooner. Especially, what is the aim and scope of that Open Metadata
>>> Handbook? Addressing the realm of all creative works is a bit ambitious.
>>> Finding an agreement on bibliographic data alone can prove difficult
>>> enough... The introduction of the wiki is quite unclear on this:
>>> "The goal is to produce something that can be given to various GLAM
>>> (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) institutions to help them
>>> setting up a proper metadata model for their works. We want to provide them
>>> a few simple steps that illustrate the best practices (or second-best
>>> practices) in terms of bibliographic metadata for each category of works."
>>>
>>> Also, I wonder what is the specificity induced by "openness" in this
>>> work--in other words, why would such metadata spec effort be carried out by
>>> the Open Biblio group. Especially, what would be the relation/difference
>>> with work undertaken as part of say, the Dublin Core Library application
>>> profile (http://dublincore.org/__documents/library-application-__profile/
>>> <http://dublincore.org/documents/library-application-profile/>) ?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>> PS: by the way the links to the Library Linked Data W3C group can be
>>> updated on your wiki. It's now published at
>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/__Incubator/lld/XGR-lld/
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/XGR-lld/> :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Antoine, Martin, Michel, Daniel, Emanuelle and Herbert
>>>
>>> I write to you on behalf of the Public Domain Working Group of the
>>> Open Knowledge Foundation.
>>> We are currently working on the making of the Open Metadata
>>> Handbook - http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/__Open_Metadata_Handbook
>>> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Open_Metadata_Handbook>
>>>
>>> and we were wondering the following:
>>>
>>> (1) whether you or anyone else you know might be interested in
>>> contributing to it, and if so, whether you'd like to join the task-force;
>>> (2) whether you already have some work lying around that you think
>>> might be useful or that could even be integrated directly into the guide,
>>> (3) or whether you have any kind of suggestions, ideas, or any
>>> useful comments about it :)
>>>
>>> Looking forward to your replies,
>>> Primavera !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: *Jonathan Gray*<jonathan.gray at okfn.org
>>> <mailto:jonathan.gray at okfn.org> <mailto:jonathan.gray at okfn.org
>>> <mailto:jonathan.gray at okfn.org>__>>
>>> Date: Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:42 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [openbiblio-dev] Bibliographic Metadata Guide is now
>>> on Wiki !
>>> To: Primavera De Filippi<primavera.defilippi at okfn.org
>>> <mailto:primavera.defilippi at okfn.org> <mailto:primavera.defilippi at __okfn.org
>>> <mailto:primavera.defilippi at okfn.org>>>
>>> Cc: Public Domain discuss list<pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>> <mailto:pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org> <mailto:pd-discuss at lists.okfn.__org
>>> <mailto:pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org>>>, openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org
>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org>
>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists.__okfn.org
>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Great start Primavera.
>>>
>>> Due to the breadth of this (not just books, but films, artworks,
>>> etc)
>>> - what about renaming this to the Open Metadata Handbook? I think
>>> this
>>> is what we originally discussed. What do you think?
>>>
>>> Also I'd ping Europeana Data Model (EDM) people as soon as
>>> possible,
>>> if you haven't done so already. They may have existing work or
>>> ideas
>>> that we might be able to build on, incorporate or at least allude
>>> to
>>> and bear in mind!
>>>
>>> The metadata standards section [1] is epic (and scary!). ;-)
>>>
>>> J.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/__Bibliographic_Metadata_Guide/__Metadata_Standards
>>> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Metadata_Guide/Metadata_Standards>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Primavera De Filippi
>>> <primavera.defilippi at okfn.org<mailto:primavera.defilippi at okfn.org>
>>> <mailto:primavera.defilippi at __okfn.org
>>> <mailto:primavera.defilippi at okfn.org>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all
>>> > As you might already know, the Public Domain Working Group and
>>> the Open
>>> > Bibliographic Data Working Groupof the Open Knowledge
>>> Foundationare working
>>> > on the drafting of a Bibliographic Metadata Guide.
>>> > The goal is to produce something that can be hand in to various
>>> GLAM
>>> > institutions to help them setting up a proper metadata model for
>>> their
>>> > works.
>>> > We want to provide them a few simple steps that illustrates the
>>> best
>>> > practices (or second-best practices) in terms of bibliographic
>>> metadata for
>>> > each category of works.
>>> > The guide has now been turned into a Wikibook for easier
>>> editing, the
>>> > current draft is available here
>>> > http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/__Bibliographic_Metadata_Guide
>>> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bibliographic_Metadata_Guide>
>>>
>>> > We would like to involve the whole community in this project, so
>>> please feel
>>> > free to contribute it any way you like, and if you know someone
>>> that might
>>> > be interested in contributing to this guide, please don't
>>> hesitate to
>>> > forward the link to them.
>>> >
>>> > Main tasks which are still to be completed are:
>>> >
>>> > - review& add to the current minimum/complete list of core
>>> metadata
>>> > elements for literary work + provide a similar minimum/complete
>>> list of core
>>> > metadata elements for other kinds of works
>>> >
>>> > - review/edit the current description of metadata standards +
>>> eventually
>>> > provide some additional information concerning who uses what
>>> >
>>> > - for the last section, produce a decision-tree, where different
>>> data
>>> > providers can answer simple questions in order to find out what
>>> are
>>> > best-practices for them, in terms of exchange format and
>>> metadata format.
>>> >
>>> > Finally, we are trying to set up a small task-force of
>>> contributors who
>>> > would be assigned specific sections or tasks. If you are
>>> interested in
>>> > joining the task force, please don't hesitate to contact me.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks !
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _________________________________________________
>>> > openbiblio-dev mailing list
>>> > openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org
>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org>
>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists.__okfn.org
>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org>>
>>>
>>> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/__listinfo/openbiblio-dev
>>> <http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openbiblio-dev>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jonathan Gray
>>>
>>> Community Coordinator
>>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>>> http://www.okfn.org
>>>
>>> http://twitter.com/jwyg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
More information about the openbiblio-dev
mailing list