I liked this definition of metadata: the sum total of what one can say about any information object, including content, context and structure. Metadata ensures interoperability, but interoperability requires the objects to "speak the same language." With the Web open to everyone to post items (no longer only information professionals,) the metadata may no longer be written in language that is understandable by all. In order for there to be interoperability, there needs to be standards and quality control. I think this is what Dublin Core is all about, but to be honest, I have not been able to fully comprehend that concept.
One last note about metadata--"it is the Rosetta stone that will make it possible to decode information objects and their transformation into knowledge in the cultural heritage information systems of the future." That's a great definition and an even greater application if indeed it works that way.
Melissa,
ReplyDeleteI like how you point out the difficulty of understanding metadata in a world where everyone creates their own. Basic standards are necessary in metadata creation, but I also think a degree of specialization is needed as well. Not everyone in a particular community or country describe information the same way; I think metadata should be tailored to meet a specific community's needs. The Dublin Core Initiative sounds like it tries to address these problems. However, after reading this article, I still do not understand how it works.
I agree with what you said about metadata, Melissa. In my Understanding Information class last semester, my professor described the definition of metadata as "data about data". It took me a long time to figure out what this phrase meant. I like how, in your post, you point out the complexities of metadata and how it is difficult to understand. I had the same problem when I started the program.
ReplyDeleteYou and I picked out the same points in the Gilliland reading, Melissa! I too found the comparison to the Rosetta Stone really the perfect analogy to help us think about metadata. And I DO think that Dublin Core is intended to "standardize" metadata and make it accessible to all, not just to the professionals behind the scenes.
ReplyDeleteWow, you picked out some good points in the reading that I missed and also helped me understand it better. Reading all of these articles together made my head a little fuzzy but this puts it in to perspective.
ReplyDeleteI agree, that definition of metadata is really illuminating. I wish the rest of the article had been so clear! I'm not at all sure what Dublin Core is, but I'm interested in the idea of standardizing metadata. The pros and cons to that tactic would be interesting to read more about.
ReplyDeleteI wish I could be as clear and concise as you are in writing about these readings! I think I just need to ruminate longer on them, to create my own opinion, instead of simply regurgitating the information.
ReplyDeleteGreat definition of metadata to highlight, Melissa! Even though this topic is not necessarily that "hard" to understand, it can get complicated quickly, especially with reading multiple articles on the topic. Folksonomies and the ability for everyday users to create tags and ways of organizing their information can be great, but I absolutely agree that without some sort of standard, the purpose behind creating metadata can get lost because of language barriers. I love the Rosetta stone quote--how wonderful it would be if we can get to a point where metadata will function as this sort of bridge.
ReplyDeleteMeghan,
ReplyDeleteI liked your comment about the standardization of terms of metadata. I work in a medical library and use the MeSH index for medical research. Standards or groupings are especially needed in medicine where there are numerous names for the same drug/ disease. This is why MeSH is important. It puts all these similar terms together so that is you are searching for ALS you will also get articles for Lou Gehrig's disease. If we didn't have some way of "standardizing" or at least appropriately "grouping" terms, information would be hard to find.
I agree with you Melissa that interoperability requires the metadata to be of the same language and that standards are required to ensure that the majority of people regardless of the amount of resources available to them can access and interpret that information. Our cultural heritage information systems should be democratically available by language that is accessible to all.
ReplyDelete