It was a joke, but with serious intent.

The pandemic has revealed the extent to which the "metadata" we
consider important is insanely contingent on who's making the call,
when they're making the call, and what the envisioned use for the data
and the metadata.

We're currently migrating some collections from one DSpace instance to
another using METS. METS has the ball-of-mud approach to metadata (you
can stick _anything_ in there and it's still a ball of mud) but there
appear to be no namespaces for some metadata, like usage stats. Not
even any non-standardised namespaces. Even the archivists don't appear
to have namespaces / standardisation for usage data. Yet most of us
have layers of management who drool over usage stats.

Why?

Ethnicity (of authors or subject matter) is another metadata field
where we're lacking and have layers of management who (sh/w)ould love
this information.

cheers
stuart
--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 09:39, Fitchett, Deborah
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I was assuming it was a joke just because I’m not aware of Stuart working on collections where such a taxonomy would be useful (though if I’m wrong I look forward to seeing a demo sometime!) but that doesn’t preclude serious answers too: I can see all sorts of research applications (and various surveillance applications) though admittedly I’m mostly envisaging using the library discovery layer to play a game of Guess Who.
>
> Deborah
>
> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
> Sent: Wednesday, 31 March 2021 2:09 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] facial hair names
>
> Ah, I see. Was the original question intended as a joke? I took the question seriously. There are databases out there which record facial features like this and taxonomies exist for various body features. But I'm not aware of a metadata standard for exchanging such information. What field and taxonomy to use for facial hair is a legitimate question for researchers.
>
> Steve McDonald
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Fitchett, Deborah
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 7:46 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] facial hair names
>
> dc.coverage.facial
>
> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Stuart A. Yeates
> Sent: Monday, 29 March 2021 12:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [CODE4LIB] facial hair names
>
> The CDC has released a list of facial hair names https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/pdfs/FacialHairWmask11282017-508.pdf<https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/pdfs/FacialHairWmask11282017-508.pdf><https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/pdfs/FacialHairWmask11282017-508.pdf<https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/pdfs/FacialHairWmask11282017-508.pdf>>
>
> If we want to use these for facetting, which metadata fields should we be using?
>
> cheers
> stuart
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>
> ________________________________
>
> "The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) may be confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use, distribution, or copying of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by return e-mail or telephone and then delete this e-mail together with all attachments from your system."