+1 # everything is data, context makes it meta On Feb 15, 2012, at 10:29 PM, Simon Spero wrote: > I have had several theoretical changes of opinion on this question, and > have come to the considered opinion that there is no principled *essential* > difference between Metadata and Data. It all depends on the > context/theory/background assumptions to which the data is being applied. > > The property of Data being meta is entirely use sensitive. The property of > being information may depend upon the existence of metadata referring to > the data. > > For example, it is labeling of an antelope in a zoo as "an antelope" that > turns an ungulate into a document; data measured from this beast gives us > evidence about what "an antelope" is like. > The label & number of the beast, as well as the date of capture and other > provenance, are clearly metadata in this case, and provide the context for > interpreting the data as information, and for assessing the degree of > justification we have for treating this information as knowledge. However, > in other cases, the metadata may serve as data for other studies, with no > reference to our four legged friend. > Suppose we are doing a study on the rate of differently labeled specimen > acquisition in zoos across Europe over the course of the 19th and 20th > centuries. In this situation, what was metadata has become our primary > data; *our* metadata relates to the provenance of the descriptions. > > Metadata embedded by a smart sensor package included in the same persuade > as the data gathered as part of an observation run is essential to the > interpretation of that data as information. However, it is not the primary > data itself; it is the context. Radar data from early JSTARS platforms was > severely downgraded by rain between the platform and the ground; the > information provided needs context about climate conditions in order to > determine the actual amount of information obtained when fusing that > information with other sensor systems. However, the climate readings are > not part of the radar data itself. > > > So, to sum up, it depends; Further Research Is Needed; one man's Meta is > another man's Poisson. > > Simon > On Feb 14, 2012 9:59 AM, "Michael Hopwood" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Having done research, and now working in a very varied metadata role, I >> don't quite understand this discussion about data that is or isn't >> metadata. Scientific data is a great example of structured data, but it's >> not impossible to distinguish it from metadata purely describing a dataset. >> >> However, if you have scientific research data created during the >> experiments, even if it's "operational", it's clearly part of "the" data. >> This doesn't mean there can't be metadata describing *that data*. Just >> because it's not glamorous data doesn't mean it's not essential to the >> scientific process. Similarly, just being about mundane or procedural >> things doesn't make data into metadata...! >> >> You're absolutely right, the contextual information is certainly part of >> the experimental outcome in this example; otherwise it would be abstract >> data such as one might use in a textbook example. >> >> Metadata would describe the dataset itself, not the scientific research. >> There's always a certain ambiguity involved in identifying "the data" as >> distinct from the metadata, and it's a false dichotomy to suggest metadata >> is not useful at all for the domain expert. It's contextual, and the >> definition is always at least partly based on your use case for the data >> and its description. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >> Nate Vack >> Sent: 14 February 2012 14:45 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Metadata >> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Graham Triggs <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >>> That's an interesting distinction though. Do you need all that data in >>> order to make sense of the results? You don't [necessarily] need to >>> know who conducted some research, or when they conducted it in order >>> to analyse and make sense of the data. In the context of having the >>> data, this other information becomes irrelevant in terms of >>> understanding what that data says. >> >> It is *essential* to understanding what the data says. Perhaps you find >> out your sensor was on the fritz during a time period -- you need to be >> able to know what datasets are suspect. Maybe the blood pressure effect >> you're looking at is mediated by circadian rhythms, and hence, times of day. >> >> Not all of your data is necessary in every analysis, but a bunch of blood >> pressure measurements in the absence of contextual information is >> universally useless. >> >> The metadata is part of the data. >> >> -n >>