[openbiblio-dev] Open Metadata Handbook

Tue Dec 20 16:30:08 UTC 2011

Primavera De Filippi <pdefilippi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Karen, thank you, this is valuable imput. We are currently trying to
> better define the goal of the Open Metadata Handbook, which will go through
> extensive review in the following weeks. This guide could be source of
> great inspiration !  :)

I agree, I am also impressed by the clarity of this guide.

--Jim

> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
> > 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 <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/<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/<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/>
> >>> >>>> <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/>
> >>> <
> >>> 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/>
> >>> >>>> <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/>
> >>> >>>> <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>
> >>> >>>> <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@**okfn.org<primavera.defilippi at okfn.org>
> >>> >>>> <mailto:primavera.defilippi@**okfn.org<primavera.defilippi at okfn.org>
> >>> >
> >>> >>>>  <mailto:primavera.defilippi at __**okfn.org <http://okfn.org>
> >>> >>>> <mailto:primavera.defilippi@**okfn.org<primavera.defilippi at okfn.org>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>>        Cc: Public Domain discuss list<pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> >>> >>>> <mailto:pd-discuss at lists.okfn.**org <pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org>>
> >>>  <mailto:pd-discuss at lists.okfn.
> >>> __org
> >>> >>>> <mailto:pd-discuss at lists.okfn.**org <pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org>>>>,
> >>> openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org
> >>> >>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists.**okfn.org<openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org>
> >>> >
> >>> >>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists._**_okfn.org
> >>> >>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists.**okfn.org<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>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> <
> >>> 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@**
> >>> okfn.org <primavera.defilippi at okfn.org>>
> >>> >>>> <mailto:primavera.defilippi at __**okfn.org <http://okfn.org>
> >>> >>>> <mailto:primavera.defilippi@**okfn.org<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>
> >>> >>>> <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<openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org>
> >>> >
> >>> >>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists._**_okfn.org
> >>> >>>> <mailto:openbiblio-dev at lists.**okfn.org<openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>         >  http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**
> >>> __listinfo/openbiblio-dev<http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/__listinfo/openbiblio-dev>
> >>> >>>> <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<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
> >
> >