[openbiblio-dev] Open Metadata Handbook
Karen Coyle
kcoyle at kcoyle.net
Fri Dec 16 14:23:33 UTC 2011
I've been spending a lot of time on sites dedicated to the semantic
web and metadata, and came across this metadata guide aimed at the
marine biology community. While it has a partiuclar focus, I think
that some of the approaches it takes are quite good, especially in
explaining how to evaluate a metadata schema:
http://marinemetadata.org/guides
It may be that the handbook should have some of these characteristics.
kc
Quoting Primavera De Filippi <pdefilippi at gmail.com>:
> 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>wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your email Antoine!
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Antoine Isaac <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
>>
>> >
>> >> 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
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Gray
>>
>> Community Coordinator
>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>> http://www.okfn.org
>>
>> http://twitter.com/jwyg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> openbiblio-dev mailing list
>> openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openbiblio-dev
>>
>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
More information about the openbiblio-dev
mailing list