 |
 |
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 >