 |
 |
Could this conversation be described as metametadata? *runs, hides* Thanks, Becky Bonus: Metacow - http://wisconsin.cowparade.com/cow/detail/3973/ On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Richard, Joel M <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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? :) > > --Joel > > > Joel Richard > 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: > > > 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 > >> >