LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  January 2016

CODE4LIB January 2016

Subject:

Re: Creating/maintaining metadata for intangible concepts

From:

Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:36:15 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (56 lines)

Hi Laura,

You have the idea. There are a number of access points we'd like humans to
add based on space/time/location/use/visual elements in the photos
unrelated to the actual subject matter. There are a variety of approaches
that could be taken, and I've received helpful ideas offline on how to
proceed.

I'm not a fan of CYA policies, but I'm averse to adding the sort of tags
you removed because I cannot imagine how such tags wouldn't put our library
and institution in a very bad light while undermining organizational
priorities. However, the need for providing this sort of access is real so
we need to do something. The suggestions I received are mostly based on
restricting or obfuscating some metadata, and a solution along those lines
will probably be the ticket.

One particular idea that intrigued me was classification codes in a
specialized field. This provides a lot of display and search options as
what is displayed can be very different than what is stored/searched --
i.e. people could search in plain English and the results would appear
without it being obvious why the search works (and hopefully they wouldn't
wonder). The other thing I like about it is it's easy to eliminate once the
need for it disappears.

Less sensitive stuff is more straightforward. My gut reaction is that
regular tags stored as multiword non-tokenized strings (to prevent
pollution of search results and the subject index) might be a good
approach. But since many libraries have needs similar to ours, I thought
I'd ask as I'm sure a lot of people have given this issue more thought than
I have.

kyle



On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Laura Buchholz <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Kyle, I don't know if I'm understanding your question correctly, but I
> think this is something I was just reviewing. I removed "Diversity" as a
> subject term (we're a little loose here in applying subjects terms that
> aren't directly in the photo) from some photos that were of, for example, a
> single student studying on the lawn or in the coffee shop. The diversity in
> the photo was that the student was of color. When there is an image of a
> white student, we wouldn't put "homogeneity" or something like that, so I
> took off "diversity". But, as you say, users do want to be able to search
> for these concepts, and I think it is important not to erase differences
> just because it is difficult to represent that without being essentialist
> in metadata.
>
Are you trying to automate this process, or are humans doing this? If
> automated, watch out for what Google Photos did:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/07/01/google-apologizes-after-photos-identify-black-people-as-gorillas/29567465/
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager