29
Sep
2014
Groups audience:
Hello everyone -- a reminder that we will host a GoToMeeting tomorrow (Tuesday, 30 September) at 1 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (12 Central, 10 Pacific, 7 p.m. CEST); Mike Fortun and Brandon Costelloe-Kuehn will report back on RDA Plenary 4 last week, and the DPHE-IG breakout sessions in particular. Hope to see you then!
GoToMeeting:
- 1. Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone on Tue, Sep 30, 1:00 p.m. EDT, 7:00 PM CEST
- 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VOIP) for audio. You'll sound best with a headset. You can also call in using your telephone.
- New Zealand (Long distance): +64 (0) 9 909 7882
- Norway (Long distance): +47 21 54 32 44
- Germany (Long distance): +49 (0) 811 8899 6976
- Switzerland (Long distance): +41 (0) 435 0006 96
- Netherlands (Long distance): +31 (0) 208 908 267
- France (Long distance): +33 (0) 182 880 455
- United Kingdom (Long distance): +44 (0) 20 3535 0611
- Australia (Long distance): +61 2 8355 1023
- Canada (Long distance): +1 (647) 497-9391
- Denmark (Long distance): +45 (0) 69 91 88 61
- Spain (Long distance): +34 931 81 6668
- Finland (Long distance): +358 (0) 931 58 1746
- United States (Long distance): +1 (646) 982-0002
- Belgium (Long distance): +32 (0) 38 08 1855
- Austria (Long distance): +43 (0) 7 2088 1399
- Ireland (Long distance): +353 (0) 15 290 180
- Sweden (Long distance): +46 (0) 852 500 612
- Italy (Long distance): +39 0 699 36 98 80
Access Code: 283-762-613
Audio PIN: Shown after joining the session - Not at your computer? Click the link to join this meeting from your iPhone®, iPad®, Android® or Windows Phone® device via the GoToMeeting app.
- GoToMeeting®
- Log in to post comments
- 8927 reads
Author: Kendall Roark
Date: 30 Sep, 2014
Hi all,
Just wanted to follow-up on the discussion today around metadata schema for
ethnography and history and Dan Price's suggestion that we take a more
critical approach to focus on controlled vocabularies. After a little bit
of thought, I realized that this discussion reminded me of Anne
Gilliland-Swetland's 2000 report for CLIR, where she describes the
different histories and trajectories for archival and library traditions in
North America. I believe as someone trained in an American four-field
anthropology tradition I am much more comfortable with the archival
approach with it's emphasis on context or the more problematic idea of the
"organic nature of records". Seems like this group especially can offer
(and draw upon critical traditions in history, anthropology and achives) to
talk about what metadata is needed to place a digital object in context
alongside what might make it discoverable and available for access / re-use
by a secondary researcher. I am starting to see this come up as well in
other scientific disciplines that are re-examining annotation practices and
metadata for preserving context. A recent example of this is the LCPD2014
conference presentation by Laura Slaughter, et. al. on "living systematic
reviews" for clinical trials.
Best,
Kendall
1. pub89. *Enduring Paradigm, New Opportunities: The Value of the Archival
Perspective in the Digital Environment*
Anne J. Gilliland-Swetland (2000, 43pp), Washington, D.C., Council on
Library and Information Resources, ISBN 1-887334-74-2, Available at:
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub89/
2. Enabling Living Systematic Reviews and Clinical Guidelines Through
Semantic Technologies, LCPD2014 presentation,
Laura Slaughter, Christopher Friis Berntsen, Linn Brandt and Chris
Mavergames (2014), Available at:
http://prezi.com/2stwnxh-qxl9/living-systematic-reviews/ (see also
transcription of presentation tab)
Introduction, http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub89/
Kendall Roark
CLIR/DLF Postdoctoral Fellow in Data Curation
2-10U Cameron Library | University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB T6G 2J8, Canada
Tel: 780-492-6745 | Fax: 780-492-9243
***@***.***
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:31 PM, mikefortun
<***@***.***>
wrote:
Author: Dan Price
Date: 30 Sep, 2014
Thanks so much for this and for the links. I feel like I'm new to the
group, so am just feeling my way in terms of your existing priorities. I
like the questions outlined in the prezi - and have spent some time trying
to think through ways of making more flexible ontologies, so that you're
not bound to the initial ontology choices as you build your data archives -
but I guess I wanted to think about something even more specific. It seems
to me that there's a practical side of the argument (which is how I would
try to pitch the idea of flexible metadata) and then there's a critical
side (which is, in our age, something like reflexive practice as opposed to
simply not doing anything). Under the rubric of reflexive practice, I think
you need metadata categories that say something like - "used as contesting
existing categories"; or "placeholder for something not yet sayable"; or
"kinda in between these two known things". I know some folks have talked
about that, but most of the OWL semantics still seem to me to be attempts
to systematize what has already been said, as opposed to reflect on what
can emerge from trying to speak more attentively to the future
context/choices.
Let me know, by the way, if this is not the right place to reply at length.
Thanks!
Dan
Author: Mike Fortun
Date: 01 Oct, 2014
Hi Kendall -- thanks so much for these! I just looked quickly at them but
they seem very interesting and pertinent to what we're trying to do, so
I'll spend some more time going through them more carefully.
Dan, I think this is a fine place to reply at length like that, since all
the responses get archived in our IG's page at the RDA. Re your comments
about future context: it made me think of all the visualizations of the
"data life cycle" I've seen recently, where even when there is clearly an
iterative dimension given to it and a future is somehow present, it still
tends to look like a loop closing back on itself. Which in some sense it
has to, since the metadata needs to be written in the present -- so I'm not
sure what I'm suggesting...
Mike