[pd-discuss] Bibliographic Metadata Guide

[Primavera De Filippi]

Hi John, thanks for your feedback !

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
?

As for the protocols, I added a new section to the guide "III.
Protocols & Containers" describing OAI-MPH, OAI-ORE, Atom and METS.
Please don't hesitate to take a look at it and improve it as you deem
necessary !

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:09 PM, John Mark Ockerbloom
<ockerblo at pobox.upenn.edu> wrote:
> Sorry, where I said "standards" I meant to say "protocols".  Basically,
> it can be useful in some cases to describe not just the metadata itself, but
> the contexts in which it's embedded or obtained.
>
> John
>
>
> On 08/19/2011 11:04 AM, John Mark Ockerbloom wrote:
>>
>> Is it worth adding some discussion of standards or containers for this
>> metadata?
>> While I suspect that you're not intending to focus on that, it does affect
>> the metadata choices in some cases. (E.g., OAI-PMH mandates a Dublin Core
>> description of each object; Atom may also tend to favor certain kinds of
>> formats.) Likewise, containers such as METS are one way of addressing the
>> problem of combining descriptive and non-descriptive metadata.
>>
>> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> pd-discuss mailing list
> pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/pd-discuss
>