[openbiblio-dev] [pd-discuss] Bibliographic Metadata Guide
Primavera De Filippi
primavera.defilippi at okfn.org
Wed Sep 7 15:57:04 UTC 2011
given the recent activity on the Bibliographic Metadata Guide, I
thought it would be nice to clean things up a bit and re-organise the
I decided to split it into different sections: the old etherpad is now
deprecated and has been replaced by the following pads:
- http://openbiblio.okfnpad.org/metadata-toc = Table of content +
generalities, links, and informations
- http://openbiblio.okfnpad.org/metadata-art = State of the Art -
review of the different standards + who uses what
- http://openbiblio.okfnpad.org/metadata-procons = Analysis of the pro
& cons of the most popular standards
- http://openbiblio.okfnpad.org/metadata-conclusions = our conclusions
- what do we want to propose as the "best" standard(s) for
It would be great if you can take a look of those pads and make sure
everything is correct, or perhaps add whatever you thing should be
As usual, any comments or feedback are greatly appreciated :)
Keep on with the good work !
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Primavera De Filippi
<primavera.defilippi at okfn.org> wrote:
> Hi Jim and everoyne,
> thank you all for you feedback - any comment is greatly appreciated
> and please do keep contributing !
> A lot of discussion is currently going on in the Bibliographic
> Metadata Guide's etherpad: http://okfnpad.org/metadata
> I think it is important that the community is and remains involved in
> this discussion because we want to reach a consensus from the
> So if anyone is either interested or concerned by the use of metadata
> standards in the bibliographic area, take a look at the pad:
> the most interesting sections at the moments are: ##Goals, and
> ##Issues to be addressed
> any contribution and feedback is welcome ;)
> Thank you !
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Jim Pitman <pitman at stat.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> Primavera De Filippi <primavera.defilippi at okfn.org> wrote:
>>> The term "Auto-descriptive Metadata" was indeed unclear, I changed it
>>> into "Self-descriptive Metadata" - whenever the metadata contains
>>> sufficient information for the component and its relationship to the
>>> conference series to be completely self-describing, versus "Non
>>> Self-descriptive Metadata" - whenever the meaning of the markup
>>> language is implemented in the logic of the parser, i.e. the metadata
>>> is not self-descriptive. Do you think that's more accurate and clear
>> No! What does "relationship to the conference series" mean for a book?
>> What does "completely self-describing" mean? Why does this distinction
>> (whatever is intended) make a useful categorization?
>> Also, in the pad I see something different again:
>>>Main distinction is between:
>>>1. self-descriptive metadata (based on a metadata data model)
>>>2. the rest
>> The meaning of this distinction is not clear to me. Take for example BibTeX.
>> This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BibTeX provides an almost machine-readable
>> description of the BibTeX data schema. Isnt that a metadata data model?
>> I see DC is under both 1. and 2.
>> I am left with no idea what is intended by the distinction or why it might be useful.
More information about the openbiblio-dev