[openbiblio-dev] Open Metadata Handbook

Antoine Isaac aisaac at few.vu.nl
Thu Dec 15 17:49:39 UTC 2011

Hi Primavera,  Jonathan,

OK, that sounds good! Good luck with the re-wording, it is really crucial to have Jonathan's points clearly articulated. And of course we all know writing such documents is difficult business ;-)

Btw, once again, I'd recommend you to first put matter for the bibliographic domain, and try and address the rest later. At least after that first ride will have informed you on whether the full monty is something you want to pursue...

As promised before, Robina and Valentine will circulate the report of EuropeanaLibraries in the coming weeks, so that you get some idea of what the project will be using. *But* keep in mind then that this is not done with "rights calculation scenarios" as core focus--it's more on the "general interoperability" side of things. The ARROW pointers that I've sent may be more useful for you for the calculator scenario.



> Hi Jonathan and Isaac,
> thanks for the feedback. I have rapidly updated the front page of the metadata handbook to reflect your comments, will go over the whole guide later this week and make sure that it reflects this focus.
> Please dont hesitate to provide more suggestions or feedback !
> Thanks,
> Primavera
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org <mailto:jonathan.gray at okfn.org>> wrote:
>     Thanks for your email Antoine!
>     On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac at few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac at few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>      > 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.
>     Agreed. There may be some disconnect between the original idea /
>     intention, and text which is in the draft. We should amend the text in
>     the Open Metadata Handbook accordingly. This is supposed to be a
>     fairly straightforward guide to tools and standards that already
>     exist, not a universal guide to metadata, doing all things for all
>     people.
>      > In particular, I find it really important to focus on the requirements of
>      > scenarios like public domain calculation.
>     Yes - and for people who are interested in reusing open metadata from
>     cultural heritage organisations, but who may not know much about how
>     this is usually structured.
>      > 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).
>     It *would* be nice if all metadata were interoperable, but (having
>     worked as a librarian for a stint) that feels like a much more long
>     term aspiration. ;-)
>     OKFN's prerogative is to encourage more GLAM institutions to open up
>     their metadata, not to harmonise all metadata, or to tell GLAM
>     institutions to change the way they do things.
>      > 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).
>     Indeed. Again - we should amend the scope of the book. To be clear:
>     this was my idea, but I haven't been involved in drafting it. I'll try
>     and run through this with Primavera with your comments in mind.
>      > 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."
>     Yes. I haven't been involved in drafting, but this wording does need
>     to be amended!
>      > 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.
>     I can certainly relate to this. Just to reiterate, it is good to have
>     your input!
>     All the best,
>     Jonathan

More information about the openbiblio-dev mailing list