[openbiblio-dev] Fwd: [pd-discuss] Bibliographic Metadata Guide

Tue Sep 27 21:57:04 UTC 2011

Hi all,
given the current status of the Bibliographic Metadata Guide, perhaps
it is time for an online catch-up (skype call) with all the actual /
potential contributors.
The objective of the call would be to:
(1) go over what has already been done,
(2) identify the sections that still need more work, and
(3) open the floor to discussion to come up with a consensus regarding
our recommendations.

I suggest to make the call this Thursday 29th September around 16:00 (GMT)
please let me know if that is suitable for most of you, or else please
suggest a different time or date
Hope to hear from you soon !
Primavera

I notice Adrian Pohl asked about the metadata guide - sorry, I have
still to add to that, been very busy. Perhaps it is time for a small
online "event" to go over it? Perhaps suggest a skype call for all
interested parties, maybe later next week? You could go over what you
have so far, what still needs doing, where else you need feedback from
- that would also force people like me to give you some answers! Feel
free to suggest a time suitable for you via the pdw / openbiblio lists
- later afternoon is often better, so that any Americans are awake and
able to join.

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Primavera De Filippi
<pdefilippi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Adrian
>
> - 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, or what do we want to propose as the "best" standard(s)
> for
> bibliographic metadata
>
> Most of the discussion that is going on is in the last etherpad, but
> you are welcome to contribute wherever you think is necessary !
> Thanks,
> Primavera
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Adrian Pohl <ad.pohl at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> 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
>> Adrian
>>
>> 2011/9/7 Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net>:
>>> I'm not at all sure about the section on metadata data models in:
>>>  http://openbiblio.okfnpad.org/metadata-art
>>>
>>> It seems to be a mix of models and serializations. You might want to look
>>> at:
>>>
>>> http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/
>>>
>>> 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:
>>>
>>> resources
>>>  independent resources
>>>  contained resources (articles, chapters)
>>>  resource containers (journals, books)
>>> agents
>>>  creators
>>>    persons
>>>    corporate bodies
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> An example of this is the Scholarly Works Application Profile:
>>>  http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Eprints_Application_Profile#Scholarly_Works_Application_Profile
>>>
>>> which begins with an E-R model:
>>>
>>> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/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.
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>> mentioned.
>>>> As usual, any comments or feedback are greatly appreciated  :)
>>>> Keep on with the good work !
>>>> Primavera
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>> community.
>>>>> So if anyone is either interested or concerned by the use of metadata
>>>>> standards in the bibliographic area, take a look at the pad:
>>>>> http://okfnpad.org/metadata
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Jim
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openbiblio-dev
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> openbiblio-dev mailing list
>> openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openbiblio-dev
>>
>