I'm not sure there's one right answer, but the values in a simple DC
terms list are _generally_ considered 'metadata' in my experience.
"<dc:subject xml:lang="en">seafood</dc:subject>", yes, "seafood" is
generally considered metadata in any conversatoin I've seen or read.
Becuase "seafood" as a subject is _about_ whatever resource is being
described by that DC term.
I agree with those that say 'metadata' vs 'data' is purely a matter of
perspective and what you're doing with it, it is a perspectival and
contingent trait, not an existential one, whether something is 'data' or
'metadata'.
One example I use for this (which some other people find ridiculous) is
that, in my opinion, if you have the full text of an article in an
index, and are using that full text for searching and relevancy ranking
but NOT for actually presenting in a form that can be _read_ as an
article (it may not even be stored in a form that allows that) --- then
I'd argue that in that case the _fulltext_ is being used as 'metadata'
about the article! It's metadata about what terms are present in the
article, being used for search matching.
Jonathan
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
>>>> 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 - 11:49:01 EST