At 11:15 2005-05-24, Steve Richardson wrote:
>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?
Well, at first sight, whichever they are, they look the same
kind of information to me.
>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.
A very interesting and challenging approach to a definition.
I can't remember the philosophical term for this approach.
>if the size, power, features etc. of a washing machine are useful search
>criteria then they are metadata?
I think the difficulty here is that it is easy to get into
a very individualistic approach, viz:
"That will /won't help *me* search for things, therefore
it does / does not count as metadata"
If metadata means just what each person wants it to mean,
then it's time to rename the SIG.
My suggestion is, I hope, pretty clear and unambiguous -
there's a challenge for people to shoot it down!
When (and only when) dealing with digital representations of
real world objects, facts, etc. I count information about the
real-world entity to be something else - ontology, schema
are two words that have been used - and information about
the digital representation to be metadata. Very importantly,
this could include legally-relevant information about who
has what rights over the information *as represented*
(fairly in line with copyright; maybe less so with patent).
One could even illustrate that in librarian's terms...
Take a biography of - Isaac Newton say.
Information about Isaac Newton does *not* count as metadata.
Information about the biography does.
However, to count as metadata, one must be qualifying
the information, not its physical manifestation.
Information about a particular copy of the book
would not count as metadata (who bought it, how
many pages are missing or have their corners turned.)
Does that make sense to librarians?
It is clear?
Is it clear and sensible enough to agree on?
Regards
Simon
--
Simon Grant, of North-West England http://www.simongrant.org/home.html
Information Systems Strategist http://www.inst.co.uk/
Please continue to use my established e-mail address
a (just by itself) (at) simongrant.org
|