> Perhaps theres nothing intrisic about those pieces of information that
> does help define metadata, and it is simply a question of what can
> usefully and efficiently be stored with the view to facilitating the
> retrieval of that information... if the number of pages in a book is
> useful search criteria then it becomes metadata, if it is not useful it
> doesnt.

I agree, Steve.  Obviously, metadata does tend to assume familiar
manifestations (i.e. author, title, publication date, subject, etc, etc.)
because these attributes tend to be the most useful access points for most
users and describe most information entities adequately (e.g. monographs,
documents, reports, serials, websites, etc.).  But as a library &
information science person, I've always considered metadata to be as you
have described.  After all, the purpose of a traditional bibliographic
record is simply to facilitate access by informing users of the existence of
a resource and to provide access points by which to discover that resource -
these access points could feasibly assume any manifestation.  Such an ethos
also resonates with Ranganathan's 5 Laws of Library Science - the legitimacy
of which should never be questioned!  So,

> if the size, power, features etc. of a washing machine are useful search
> criteria then they are metadata?

Yes! If users would find such access points useful then they are perfectly
acceptable.  My only proviso would be that the item needs to be adequately
recorded in the catalogue and has the necessary descriptive metadata (i.e.
not just size, power, features, but a statement of responsibility, general
material designation, etc.).  Or, are you suggesting that there should only
be access points and no descriptive metadata??? Hmmm, now that would be
controversial!

Returning to Simon's original email:

> Or has someone else set out these kind of categories of information better
> than I have here?

The International Federation of Library Associates and Institutions (IFLA)
and OCLC have been working towards FRBR implementation (Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records) in order to restructure catalogue
databases so as to reflect the conceptual nature of information resources.
FRBR uses an entity-relationship model of metadata for information entities,
instead of the single flat record concept used in current cataloguing
practices and includes 4 levels of representation: work, expression,
manifestation and item.  IFLA and OCLC are beavering away refining FRBR, but
it is expected that it will be rolled out to most catalogue dbs real soon
now.  FRBR goes some way to clarifying your metadata categories, Simon.
FRBR is expected to make big waves in the library community, and I expect
the shocks will be felt by everyone in metadata-land, not just in libraries!
Incidentally, FRBR relies on controlled vocabularies and the use of
authority files, but let's not get into that again! ;-)

George


----------------------------------------------
George Macgregor,
Centre for Digital Library Research (CDLR),
Department of Computer & Information Sciences,
University of Strathclyde, Livingstone Tower,
26 Richmond Street, Glasgow, UK, G1 1XH
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4753
web: http://cdlr.strath.ac.uk/
--------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: The CETIS Metadata Special Interest Group [mailto:CETIS-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Richardson
> Sent: 24 May 2005 11:16
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: What do we mean by metadata?
>
> Hi All,
>
> Wasnt going to send this to the list, Im guilty of causing enough
> trouble already recently, but it seems as though an article from the
> wiki page - metacrap - http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm  -
> highlights the issue Simon has brought to bear...
>
> I for one am quite interested to mete this out;
>
> to give another example, if author IS metadata and the number of pages
> IS NOT metadata
>
> what specific properties of these two pieces of information can help us
> define metadata?
>
> is it a moot point?
>
> Perhaps theres nothing intrisic about those pieces of information that
> does help define metadata, and it is simply a question of what can
> usefully and efficiently be stored with the view to facilitating the
> retrieval of that information... if the number of pages in a book is
> useful search criteria then it becomes metadata, if it is not useful it
> doesnt.
>
> if the size, power, features etc. of a washing machine are useful search
> criteria then they are metadata?
>
> kind regards
> Steve
>
>
> Simon Grant wrote:
>
> > Steve
> >
> > Thanks - the link is fun, but not just fun to me: could be the basis
> > of a useful discussion.
> >
> > The author is in fact guilty of confusing the potential metadata
> > categories that I have set out.
> > The size, power, features etc. of a washing machine is just what I
> > would *not* call metadata.
> > It's just plain structured data, wouldn't you say? That's the nub of
> > my question.
> >
> > Feel free to reply to list if moved.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > At 10:18 2005-05-24, you wrote:
> >
> >> i hadnt spotted this rather funny explanation of why metadata doesnt
> >> work before either:
> >>
> >> http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm
> >>
> >> I didnt send it to the list, Ive been bad enough recently!
> >>
> >> enjoy
> >> Steve
> >
> >