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

Wed Sep 28 07:16:30 UTC 2011

Hello,

I am travelling this week and won't be able to make it tomorrow.

Adrian

2011/9/27 Primavera De Filippi <primavera.defilippi at okfn.org>:
> 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
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openbiblio-dev mailing list
> openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openbiblio-dev
>