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
> 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 :)