Ignoring the fact that (for better or worse) so much of this listserv is preoccupied with theoretical discussion on the minutiae of terminology -- which I find fascinating and entertaining, but not terribly pragmatic...
> With that said, I do think we use the term "metadata" differently than its literal interpretation ("data about data"). When a librarian talks about metadata, it's pretty much understood that they mean "data about documents," isn't it? Library metadata == most other professions' data.
This is the very first thing I address in my "what is metadata" presentations. "Data about data", accurate or not, is far too vague. Lorcan Dempsey used "schematized assertions about resources" which I think is closer, but still too technical.
The definition I use for metadata to try to make it accessible is "organized facts about things". I realize I'm probably opening a can of worms by saying it that way, and obviously it's a simplification, but in my experience, almost everyone can intuitively understand this phrasing.
MJ
Received on Tue Jan 19 2010 - 10:12:49 EST