>>> A butterfly in the wild is not data.
>>
>> Why not ?
>>
>> -- or at least a *datum*.
>
> The fact of the butterfly being in the wild is a datum. We could say,
> number_of_butterflies_in_wild = 1. That's your piece of data. The
> butterfly *itself* is not (at least, based on the commonly understood
> definition of "data").
From my understanding, metadata was supposed to be strictly a systems definition, such as:
<dc:subject xml:lang="en">seafood</dc:subject>
The "metadata" here is the coding dc:subject xml:lang="en", not "seafood," which is the data. The data describes anything you want "love," "Obama, Barack," even "things impossible to imagine." This data can be either controlled or not and if it is controlled, you can specify how through the "metadata." "Data" without "metadata" is random and without context, while "metadata" without "data" is empty. Shorthand labels it all as "metadata" since they need one another.
Systems people have focused on the importance of the coding, often devaluing the data itself, while catalogers have focused on maintain the integrity of the data, often devaluing the importance of the coding.
But returning to my original post, I think this discussion has been a great illustration of the tendency noted by Ricky Erway, and I agreed that "metadata creation/cataloging can get far too theoretical and thereby lose a sense of practicality."
James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
via Pietro Roselli, 4
00153 Rome, Italy
voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258
fax-011 39 06 58330992
Received on Wed Jan 20 2010 - 04:49:58 EST