Metadata WG (draft statement proposal)

Where we discuss anything related to the RDA (catchall)

Moderators: Leif.Laaksonen, SaraPittonetGaiarin

Metadata WG (draft statement proposal)

Postby janeg » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:51 pm

Greetings all,

We're not quite ready for a formal WG proposal yet, but we want to use the RDA forum for feedback.

Attached is a draft case statement, and below is an email just sent to folks on the the Metadata WG roster. It seems that some of the members still need to join this forum, and we are encouraging them to do so.

<duplicate email sent to WG folks a few minutes ago..>

Greeting everyone,

First, I hope and trust family/friend of everyone on this roster are okay from storm Sandy. NC was not hit hard, although I was caught for a bit in NJ… what an ordeal.

RE: RDA: Attached is a first draft. I did my best to cull from the meeting and following discussion we've had on email. Please have at it...either edit with track changes, or share your thoughts on the RDA forum. If you haven't join, please do.

I'm going to also post this on the rda-alliance forum per Fran's request... so other folks may also have insights.

A comments, items to note -
- The candidate template is, overall, a useful guideline. There were a few places where questions were slightly duplicative, and I tried to link them.
- Section 5, Adoption Plan. It would be great if folks could look at this, and the CWG document. I simply put in a Gantt chart, and thought about the time-frame we discussed in DC. I'm a bit unclear on what sort of verbiage would help here, in addition to the work plan in section 2.
- Section 6, Initial Membership. I did a bit of web searching b/c I don't have everyone's cards, so please check your affiliations.
- There's some green text where I may have targeted people to take a look.
- It's a little unclear to me about resources at this stage and how we'd handle a face meeting. I've emphasized use of technology.

I believe we all agree that some form of a metadata directory would be a useful to various the projects in which we and are each engaged, and certainly useful to RDA. There are some fairly slick metadata registries and we don't want to reinvent there wheel. I note two cases in the case statement (LOV and the BioPortal). Even so, these developments encompass different metadata universes, a starting place that is not overwhelming and targets metadata for scientific data seems like a worthwhile undertaking as a first step.

Finally, two students in my metadata class, Amber Covington and Yuanyuan Fang, have put something up on the Dublin Core-SAM cite: http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/DC ... iance_(RDA)_Metadata_Directory. They are just starting, and would be appreciative of any thoughts on schemes to add, etc. They will be adding a form that can be filled out with suggestions too, and a third student may join them as well. Just to be mindful...this is a student/term project, but can help jumpstart our thinking, and, perhaps one of them will continue on next term!

Thanks everyone for your patience with me sharing something. Again, please have at it.. hack away and raise any questions, concerns, ideas, etc. all welcome.

Best wishes, jane
………………………………………………………………………………
Jane Greenberg
Professor, School of Information and Library Science
Director, Metadata Research Center <MRC>
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
janeg@email.unc.edu
+1-919-962-8066
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
janeg
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:25 am

Re: Metadata WG (draft statement proposal)

Postby dietuyt » Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:22 pm

Dear Jane,

thanks a lot for this information. I would like to report for duty in the metadata working group on behalf of the CLARIN community :) Metadata for scientific data is obviously an important issue in our field (see http://www.clarin.eu and http://www.clarin.eu/cmdi) and we are very interested to see how we can cooperate. I'll read through the proposal and get back to the forum on it.

best regards,
Dieter Van Uytvanck
dietuyt
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:10 pm

Re: Metadata WG (draft statement proposal)

Postby bethplale » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:18 pm

Hi,

I am with the RDA steering group and have been appointed as shepherd to the Metadata candidate working group. I am here to help and help move things along, so feel free to contact me with questions, needs, etc. On behalf of the RDA steering group, we appreciate your effort in an area that key to data discovery and use!

cheerfully

Beth Plale (plale at indiana dot edu)
RDA Steering Group
bethplale
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:29 pm

Re: Metadata WG (draft statement proposal)

Postby janeg » Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:33 pm

dietuyt wrote:Dear Jane,

thanks a lot for this information. I would like to report for duty in the metadata working group on behalf of the CLARIN community :) Metadata for scientific data is obviously an important issue in our field (see http://www.clarin.eu and http://www.clarin.eu/cmdi) and we are very interested to see how we can cooperate. I'll read through the proposal and get back to the forum on it.

best regards,
Dieter Van Uytvanck


Greetings Dieter. I think (hope) I'm using the forum correctly. Thank you very much for sharing this information; the CLARIN effort is quite remarkable; it would be great to have a link to this work. I'm incorporating feedback from a few folks, and we'll add the urls to the list and a bullet point about linking. Likely some of the work is more long-term proposed WG. Also, it would be really great to have you on-board as a EU rep., so we'll add you to the dialog, which I trust is okay. Thanks again very much, jane
janeg
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:25 am

Re: Metadata WG (draft statement proposal)

Postby janeg » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:22 pm

This is a 2nd draft for the Metadata WG case statement.

Comments, questions, input..all welcome.

best wishes, jane
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
janeg
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:25 am

Re: Metadata WG (draft statement proposal)

Postby Journeau » Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:52 pm

A few thoughts and schemes about Medata, the nature of data objects and interdisciplinary goal

A Ppt document was sent yesterday to rda-all-lists by email since I was unable to login but I have managed now to attach a scheme on at least two ways to produce metadata, either from Big data - through operational extracting/processing - or from already (eventually too) high level semantic level (research papers).

We might have at some point to stop and consider what I call the 'Cardinality issue', as summarized by the NP / IP / MIP (to make things simple) ladder on the attached figure.

In previous Ppt and other comments from DAITF I tried to emphasize that data always have attached processes, themselves related to complexity classes, which fit with their (meta)character, itself related to their capacity to act as oracles for many other underlying (decision/theoretical) problems, hence indeed for a broad, powerful, hence complex class.
Complexity becomes measurable but introduces cardinality issue, which practically corresponds to computability, when the computation time would take thousands of years whatever the computer power progress.

What this means is that some paths will face irreducible walls - if they have not yet done so - while others will be manageable.

Then also some paths will lead to interoperability, for the same reasons, while other won't : a path with cardinality walls will not be interoperable.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Journeau
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Metadata WG (draft statement proposal)

Postby alexball » Fri Mar 01, 2013 5:15 pm

On behalf of the (UK) Digital Curation Centre, I'd like to make a few comments on the draft case statement.

Charter:

  • The statement says the MWG is focused on metadata for scientific data. Is the exclusion of data from the Arts and Humanities deliberate? If not, we would recommend changing 'scientific data' to 'research data' throughout. The Arts and Humanities are no less vulnerable to the proliferation of ad hoc metadata formats and duplicative standards development efforts.
  • Under long-term goals, the statement mentions 'a minimum metadata set supporting the exchange and interoperability of scientific data resources'. I am not sure what you mean by supporting interoperability here. Generally (meta)data is made interoperable through a common data format, or through use of a common controlled vocabulary; I am not sure that you can make two otherwise incompatible datasets interoperable by describing them both in the same way. I would suggest being more specific (and, dare I say it, modest) about the use case you expect this minimum metadata set to support, such as supporting discovery and delivery.

Value proposition:

  • You have an impressive list of beneficiaries of the directory and a shorter list of key impacts. I think it would strengthen the case if you could be more specific about which benefits apply to which groups, and how they get to enjoy the benefits. For example, do professional societies get a direct benefit from using the directory themselves (e.g. monitoring where gaps exists in standards and commissioning work) or an indirect one from their members using the directory (opportunities for providing tools based on standards that gain traction through the directory, perhaps)? By setting things out in this way you set out a business case for each group which you can use when it comes to planning broader community engagement and participation.
  • On a purely aesthetic note, the bullet point starting 'The benefits and impacts outlined in this section' should be a paragraph separate from the list of actual benefits and impacts.

Engagement with existing work in this area:

  • Since the draft was written, the DCC has released its own list of research metadata standards: http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/metadata-standards. We think it is useful and relevant enough a resource to warrant a mention in future drafts of this statement, and indeed, we would be happy to work with the MWG to harmonize or co-ordinate our efforts. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further.

Work plan:

  • When you say 'The DataONE initiative will mirror this work', what does this mean in practice? Is this about hosting the directory in multiple places to balance load, keeping multiple copies as a backup strategy, or duplicating the selection process for the directory, or something else entirely?

Adoption plan:

  • This section currently only illustrates the timing of the work packages; it does not talk about adoption, that is, getting people actually to use the things you propose to deliver. It would be useful to go back to the list of groups who will benefit from the work and say how the MWG will engage with each of them. Will they be involved in the evaluation and policy development work packages? If so, do you have a process in mind for selecting representatives from each of the groups? Do you have plans for publicity, for example, through journal or conference papers?

I hope these comments will be of use for strengthening the case statement.
alexball
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:12 pm
Location: Bath, UK

Re: Metadata WG (draft statement proposal)

Postby janeg » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:09 am

Greetings all.. and Alex, thank you for a very thoughtful reply. A few comments here, which I hope gives context.

- RE: the focus on a schedule for only a "single/initial" work package. The Candidate Metadata WG was working with early guidelines (from the Oct. DC meeting). We were asked to identify what it was that we could reasonably accomplish in a 12 to 18 month period, which would have an impact, meet a known need. For this reason, the proposal focused on the directory task and a schedule. As we pursued this plan, other tasks came up as being important--several were a part of our discussions, and we simply wanted to capture them for future activity; but didn't think they were something we could accomplish in a 12 to 18 month period. The long-term tasks require more discussion, and could potentially serve to spark other metadata WG.

- The DCC Disciplinary work that you note in your above post (http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/metadata-standards) is fantastic; and, in many ways reflects the chief aim of this candidate metadata WG. It's really super!! I would think that those involved in the candidate metadata WG proposal are generally all of same mind--that there is no sense in trying to re-invent the wheel. Sure, if the RDA candidate metadata WG pursued this initial goal, a directory may have looked a bit different, but the DCC work is slick, and clearly reflects the chief task that this group was thinking to pursue.

- A positive outcome of the candidate metadata WG is that there's been some excellent discussion here, and some new ideas have emerged. It doesn't make sense to pursue the directory, given DCC work. We'll therefore use our RDA time @ the kickoff meeting in Sweden for open discussion, and turn some of this time over to new, focused work on contextual metadata.

Folks, this post can also serve as an open call to folks to take leadership with new ideas for the metadata WG, or to pick-up on other threads from earlier discussion. Rebecca and I are in touch with Brigitte Joerg, who is spearheading the context metadata WG, and this group is gaining a lot of momentum, so it seems only logical that they be able to use some of our time since they only have an hour booked on the schedule, and need more discussion time.

Use this forum please, and we'll cull ideas into an agenda supporting open discussion next week.

Thanks everyone for input. Looking forward to seeing folks next week. best wishes, jane
janeg
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:25 am

open call for metadata meeting in Gothenburg!!

Postby janeg » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:17 am

At the end the most recent post we ask for an open call to folks to take leadership with new ideas for the metadata WG, or to pick-up on other threads from earlier discussions. We want to make sure this note is not lost, so I'm repeating it via a separate post.

Rebecca L. and I are in touch with Brigitte Joerg, who is spearheading the context metadata WG, and this group is gaining a lot of momentum, so it seems only logical that they be able to use some of our time since they only have an hour booked on the schedule, and need more discussion time.

Use this forum to suggest new metadata ideas, or come to the meeting with new ideas. The initial thrust of the candidate metadata WG was so good (!!!) :D that as we we're working on our proposal, there was an effort being pursued via DCC that really deserves the limelight and there is no need to reinvent the wheel! cheers, jane + Rebecca
janeg
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:25 am

CKAN approach to Metadata

Postby Gary » Thu Apr 11, 2013 5:28 pm

I wonder if this is useful to the group.

CKAN has a metadata schema they argue is extensible allows collection of custom
information. I believe this was mentioned somewhere but I'm not sure if it has been followed up. I didn't see it in the
version of the Case Statement I had.

The CKAN approach is described at:
http://www.planet-data.eu/sites/default ... portal.pdf


In CKAN a data set is called a “package” which has a description page divided into 3
main parts holding metadata:
Basic Information,
Resources (such as Vocabulary Mappings,) and
something they call Extras (for extensions?).

In order to allow an incremental cataloging process they divide metadata into four levels:
basic,
minimal (the topic of the data, the data formats used to encode data, ways to access the data and the
dimensions of the set in triples and links to other datasets),
complete and
finalized information.

Gary Berg-Cross
Gary
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:45 pm

Next

Return to RDA Discussion Area

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron