[openbiblio-dev] [pd-discuss] Bibliographic Metadata Guide
ad.pohl at googlemail.com
Tue Sep 27 12:18:26 UTC 2011
what is the status of this metadata guide? I'd like to provide some
input but would like to know the status of the discussion first. Which
is the document I should take a look at?
All the best
2011/9/7 Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net>:
> I'm not at all sure about the section on metadata data models in:
> It seems to be a mix of models and serializations. You might want to look
> in particular the 3-layer diagram. In that framework, you have domain models
> which I find to be very useful ways of thinking about the metadata. For
> example, libraries have an older domain model, International Standard
> Bibliographic Description, and a newer one, Functional Requirements for
> Bibliographic Records. Those describe the entities of the domain.
> RDF is an even lower level model. I don't know of anything that rivals RDF
> at that level.
> For serializations you have things like turtle (for triples), XML (for data
> that can be marked up in a flat record), JSON, another record-based
> serialization. Even MARC is a serialization that can carry a variety of data
> types (as ISO 2709).
> To me, a model describes the entities of your metadata "realm" and is
> independent of any serialization. So if you want your metadata to cover,
> say, text documents, then you would define your entities:
> independent resources
> contained resources (articles, chapters)
> resource containers (journals, books)
> corporate bodies
> An example of this is the Scholarly Works Application Profile:
> which begins with an E-R model:
> The model itself has the potential to be implemented in various ways using
> different data elements and different data structures. Once the model is
> clear and the data elements have been defined, then you can choose one or
> more serializations. The serialization is really the least important part,
> since most data can be conveyed using more than one serialization.
> Sorry to go on about this, but I think that using this methodology you are
> less likely to paint yourselves into a corner, something that happens rather
> frequently with metadata. These methods help you create metadata that is
> extensible and that has a solid model as its basis.
> Quoting Primavera De Filippi <primavera.defilippi at okfn.org>:
>> Dear all,
>> 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
>> whole thing.
>> 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
>> bibliographic metadata
>> 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>
>>>> 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
>>>> This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BibTeX provides an almost
>>>> 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.
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> openbiblio-dev mailing list
> openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org
More information about the openbiblio-dev