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? :)
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:
> 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 :)