Could this conversation be described as metametadata?
Bonus: Metacow - http://wisconsin.cowparade.com/cow/detail/3973/
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Richard, Joel M <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I'll second this "amen". It was only when I entered the library world that
> I learned about the concept of metadata. Of course, I'd been using metadata
> for 12 years, but I'd never labeled it as such. To me it was just data.
> Useful information. It took time for this concept of metadata to mesh with
> what I already knew.
> Also, is this simply an over-classification of things that seems to be a
> humorously stereotypical thing that librarians do? :)
> Joel Richard
> Lead Web Developer, Web Services Department
> Smithsonian Institution Libraries | http://www.sil.si.edu/
> (202) 633-1706 | [log in to unmask]
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 2:49 PM, Rosalyn Metz wrote:
> > amen!
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Nate Vack <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> My take on this discussion, coming from a research lab: Metadata isn't
> >> meta.
> >> For example, in recordings of, say, blood pressure over time, it's
> >> common to think about things such as participant identifiers,
> >> acquisition dates, event markers, and sampling rates as "metadata,"
> >> and the actual measurements as "data."
> >> But really: those meta things aren't ancillary to data analysis;
> >> they're essential in keeping analyses organized, and often important
> >> parameters in running an analysis at all.
> >> Breaking things down into data versus metadata I think, encourages a
> >> false (and not very interesting) dichotomy. If information has a use,
> >> call it what it is: data. Store everything that's useful.
> >> If you don't yet have a use in mind for your data, then you have a
> >> place to start working :)
> >> -n