Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element

Dear members of the RDA Metadata Standards Catalog WG,
We would like some assistance in determining the priority order of which
data elements
should be unpacked first. As you recall, the list of metadata elements was
proposed at previous RDA plenary meetings. The current list of 17
high-level elements was identified at the P8 meeting held in Denver,
Colorado. The list has been shared with and reviewed by many of the domain
groups. The 17 high-level elements need to be unpacked to produce the lists
of sub-elements that more closely resemble how the elements might be
represented in a real metadata scheme. We would like feedback on the order
of elements for the unpacking process.
The most efficient way to do the survey is to check the list of elements at
the top of the survey, write down the numbers of the elements in your
priority order, and use that list to fill in the survey. It should take you
less than 2 minutes to fill in the survey.
Link to survey: https://bit.ly/3emXK0s
Thank you for your assistance,
Rebecca Koskela
Keith Jeffery
Alex Ball

Filled it out, interesting to think about it.
Not having been a member at previous discussions, I was pretty shocked Title did not appear in the list, as I would have put it #2. Likely I am missing something.
Is there a single document you can point me to that summarizes what "the current list" represents? Metadata elements for what content types and what end uses?
John
On May 26, 2020, at 11:12 AM, rkoskela via Metadata IG <***@***.***-groups.org> wrote:
Dear members of the RDA Metadata IG,
We would like some assistance in determining the priority order of which data elements
should be unpacked first. As you recall, the list of metadata elements was proposed at previous RDA plenary meetings. The current list of 17 high-level elements was identified at the P8 meeting held in Denver, Colorado. The list has been shared with and reviewed by many of the domain groups. The 17 high-level elements need to be unpacked to produce the lists of sub-elements that more closely resemble how the elements might be represented in a real metadata scheme. We would like feedback on the order of elements for the unpacking process.
The most efficient way to do the survey is to check the list of elements at the top of the survey, write down the numbers of the elements in your priority order, and use that list to fill in the survey. It should take you less than 2 minutes to fill in the survey.
Link to survey: https://bit.ly/3emXK0s
Thank you for your assistance,
Rebecca Koskela
Keith Jeffery
Alex Ball
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/survey-select-priorit...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/69772
========================
John Graybeal
Technical Program Manager
Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal
Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research
650-736-1632 | ORCID 0000-0001-6875-5360

That struck me as well, though we call it name, synonyms, and
abbreviations, but I think that it is the same idea.
Regards,
anita
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:07 PM graybeal via Metadata IG <
***@***.***-groups.org> wrote:

Dear all,
may I suggest that the people who set up the Metadata Element Priorities questionnaire quickly go in and edit it, appending a free-text optional comments field at the end - this would allow people to add e.g. their ideas for more metadata fields, or add any other suggestions. (I find it a good principle to always allow questionnaire respondents such a possibility, especially if no other contact information is given in the introductory text!)
Also: prompted by the posts by John and Anita, I've just added "Title/short name" to the "Gaps to consider" document at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HGnx1Cd0Rs0tu6HW_bIUSq7WjZdAt1xowAjt.... (This file appears to have been created in 2017, but up to now it seems no one has added anything!) However, I didn't have any "use case" in mind, other than - so I hope there are some volunteers who could be persuaded to add some useful context here!
Cheers,
Maggie
------------------
Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
***@***.***
Lund University
Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
________________________________
- Show quoted text -From: ***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> on behalf of rkoskela via Metadata IG <***@***.***-groups.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 20:12
To: Metadata IG
Subject: [rda-metadata-ig] Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element
Dear members of the RDA Metadata IG,
We would like some assistance in determining the priority order of which data elements
should be unpacked first. As you recall, the list of metadata elements was proposed at previous RDA plenary meetings. The current list of 17 high-level elements was identified at the P8 meeting held in Denver, Colorado. The list has been shared with and reviewed by many of the domain groups. The 17 high-level elements need to be unpacked to produce the lists of sub-elements that more closely resemble how the elements might be represented in a real metadata scheme. We would like feedback on the order of elements for the unpacking process.
The most efficient way to do the survey is to check the list of elements at the top of the survey, write down the numbers of the elements in your priority order, and use that list to fill in the survey. It should take you less than 2 minutes to fill in the survey.
Link to survey: https://bit.ly/3emXK0s
Thank you for your assistance,
Rebecca Koskela
Keith Jeffery
Alex Ball

All -
Apologies, missed off the complete mailing list; see below
Best wishes
Keith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: ***@***.***
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Show quoted text -From: Keith Jeffery
Sent: 27 May 2020 10:00
To: ***@***.***; ***@***.***
Subject: RE: [rda-metadata-ig] Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element
John, all -
Many thanks for the emails concerning 'Title'.
I note Rebecca replied already with links to various bits of history since RDA Plenary 2 (Washington). MIG has been active for > 7 years (initial discussions at Gothenburg) so there has been a lot of history!
If I may be permitted to explain a little more: the short answer is that the Description Element is meant to be a container with sub-elements (like most of the other elements). The Description element could include Title (or Name or Subject), Abstract and any other sub-elements the community wanted; that has been the purpose of discussions at MIG meetings at RDA plenaries and material in the various google docs (one per element) between plenaries.
Keywords is a separate element because the community (i.e. those RDA members who attended MIG meetings, placed text into the google docs or corresponded in other ways) believed (rightly in my opinion) that there is a difference between keywords from a controlled ontology (vocabulary/thesaurus) and 'free text' material as expected in the Description element.
Looking at other elements it is clear they have some degree of complexity. Provenance, for example, can be very complex with an extensive syntax and semantics. The same is true of Quality, and most of the other elements - excepting Unique Identifier (although federated IDs may be necessary i.e. multiple IDs referring to the same object) and Location (of the described asset, usually as a URL).
Hence Description was considered to have a similar level of complexity to the other elements if it had sub-elements including things like Title, Abstract.... and possibly "intended purpose" and other less formal information that may be of use especially in the 'F' of FAIR.
The general direction of travel of the community thinking, has been to get away from simple attributes or properties (punched card columns mode of thinking as someone put it) and to allow much richer metadata - as required for machine-to-machine processing as well as human - configured as a fully connected graph of relationships between (sub-)elements using formal syntax and declared semantics.
However, the whole purpose of the RDA metadata element set discussion was to come up with whatever consensus the community could achieve - hence the forum for discussion provided by MIG in and between plenaries.
With best wishes
Keith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: ***@***.***
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org>
Sent: 26 May 2020 20:03
To: ***@***.***; Metadata IG <***@***.***-groups.org>
Subject: Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element
Filled it out, interesting to think about it.
Not having been a member at previous discussions, I was pretty shocked Title did not appear in the list, as I would have put it #2. Likely I am missing something.
Is there a single document you can point me to that summarizes what "the current list" represents? Metadata elements for what content types and what end uses?
John
On May 26, 2020, at 11:12 AM, rkoskela via Metadata IG <***@***.***-groups.org> wrote:
Dear members of the RDA Metadata IG,
We would like some assistance in determining the priority order of which data elements
should be unpacked first. As you recall, the list of metadata elements was proposed at previous RDA plenary meetings. The current list of 17 high-level elements was identified at the P8 meeting held in Denver, Colorado. The list has been shared with and reviewed by many of the domain groups. The 17 high-level elements need to be unpacked to produce the lists of sub-elements that more closely resemble how the elements might be represented in a real metadata scheme. We would like feedback on the order of elements for the unpacking process.
The most efficient way to do the survey is to check the list of elements at the top of the survey, write down the numbers of the elements in your priority order, and use that list to fill in the survey. It should take you less than 2 minutes to fill in the survey.
Link to survey: https://bit.ly/3emXK0s
Thank you for your assistance,
Rebecca Koskela
Keith Jeffery
Alex Ball
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/survey-select-priorit...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/69772
========================
John Graybeal
Technical Program Manager
Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal
Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research
650-736-1632 | ORCID 0000-0001-6875-5360
All -
Apologies, missed off the complete mailing list; see below
Best wishes
Keith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: ***@***.***
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith Jeffery
Sent: 27 May 2020 10:00
To: ***@***.***; ***@***.***
Subject: RE: [rda-metadata-ig] Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element
John, all -
Many thanks for the emails concerning 'Title'.
I note Rebecca replied already with links to various bits of history since RDA Plenary 2 (Washington). MIG has been active for > 7 years (initial discussions at Gothenburg) so there has been a lot of history!
If I may be permitted to explain a little more: the short answer is that the Description Element is meant to be a container with sub-elements (like most of the other elements). The Description element could include Title (or Name or Subject), Abstract and any other sub-elements the community wanted; that has been the purpose of discussions at MIG meetings at RDA plenaries and material in the various google docs (one per element) between plenaries.
Keywords is a separate element because the community (i.e. those RDA members who attended MIG meetings, placed text into the google docs or corresponded in other ways) believed (rightly in my opinion) that there is a difference between keywords from a controlled ontology (vocabulary/thesaurus) and 'free text' material as expected in the Description element.
Looking at other elements it is clear they have some degree of complexity. Provenance, for example, can be very complex with an extensive syntax and semantics. The same is true of Quality, and most of the other elements - excepting Unique Identifier (although federated IDs may be necessary i.e. multiple IDs referring to the same object) and Location (of the described asset, usually as a URL).
Hence Description was considered to have a similar level of complexity to the other elements if it had sub-elements including things like Title, Abstract.... and possibly "intended purpose" and other less formal information that may be of use especially in the 'F' of FAIR.
The general direction of travel of the community thinking, has been to get away from simple attributes or properties (punched card columns mode of thinking as someone put it) and to allow much richer metadata - as required for machine-to-machine processing as well as human - configured as a fully connected graph of relationships between (sub-)elements using formal syntax and declared semantics.
However, the whole purpose of the RDA metadata element set discussion was to come up with whatever consensus the community could achieve - hence the forum for discussion provided by MIG in and between plenaries.
With best wishes
Keith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: ***@***.***
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Show quoted text -From: ***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org>
Sent: 26 May 2020 20:03
To: ***@***.***; Metadata IG <***@***.***-groups.org>
Subject: Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element
Filled it out, interesting to think about it.
Not having been a member at previous discussions, I was pretty shocked Title did not appear in the list, as I would have put it #2. Likely I am missing something.
Is there a single document you can point me to that summarizes what "the current list" represents? Metadata elements for what content types and what end uses?
John
On May 26, 2020, at 11:12 AM, rkoskela via Metadata IG <***@***.***-groups.org> wrote:
Dear members of the RDA Metadata IG,
We would like some assistance in determining the priority order of which data elements
should be unpacked first. As you recall, the list of metadata elements was proposed at previous RDA plenary meetings. The current list of 17 high-level elements was identified at the P8 meeting held in Denver, Colorado. The list has been shared with and reviewed by many of the domain groups. The 17 high-level elements need to be unpacked to produce the lists of sub-elements that more closely resemble how the elements might be represented in a real metadata scheme. We would like feedback on the order of elements for the unpacking process.
The most efficient way to do the survey is to check the list of elements at the top of the survey, write down the numbers of the elements in your priority order, and use that list to fill in the survey. It should take you less than 2 minutes to fill in the survey.
Link to survey: https://bit.ly/3emXK0s
Thank you for your assistance,
Rebecca Koskela
Keith Jeffery
Alex Ball
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/survey-select-priorit...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/69772
========================
John Graybeal
Technical Program Manager
Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal
Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research
650-736-1632 | ORCID 0000-0001-6875-5360

Maggie,
I've implemented your suggestion - it's the last question on the survey.
If those who have already submitted the survey would like
to use this option, you could go to the survey and just submit a response
to the last question.
Best,
Rebecca
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 1:41 AM Maggie.Hellstrom via Metadata IG <
***@***.***-groups.org> wrote:

Keith,
Thanks, I wondered if the sub-elements was the answer to the question. That all makes sense now, I apologize for taking you all down a confusing path.
I think what is tricky is that there is a link for each metadata element in the survey, and it takes the clicker to a page defining Description in a very general way. This is confusing for people who assume that's authoritative, and/or haven't been involved with the work your group has been doing. Maybe some introductory text in the survey could clarify the categorical nature and use 'Title' as an example, if not already there.
Good luck with the survey!
John
- Show quoted text -From: Keith Jeffery
Sent: 27 May 2020 10:00
To: ***@***.***; ***@***.***
Subject: RE: [rda-metadata-ig] Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element
John, all –
Many thanks for the emails concerning ‘Title’.
I note Rebecca replied already with links to various bits of history since RDA Plenary 2 (Washington). MIG has been active for > 7 years (initial discussions at Gothenburg) so there has been a lot of history!
If I may be permitted to explain a little more: the short answer is that the Description Element is meant to be a container with sub-elements (like most of the other elements). The Description element could include Title (or Name or Subject), Abstract and any other sub-elements the community wanted; that has been the purpose of discussions at MIG meetings at RDA plenaries and material in the various google docs (one per element) between plenaries.
Keywords is a separate element because the community (i.e. those RDA members who attended MIG meetings, placed text into the google docs or corresponded in other ways) believed (rightly in my opinion) that there is a difference between keywords from a controlled ontology (vocabulary/thesaurus) and ‘free text’ material as expected in the Description element.
Looking at other elements it is clear they have some degree of complexity. Provenance, for example, can be very complex with an extensive syntax and semantics. The same is true of Quality, and most of the other elements - excepting Unique Identifier (although federated IDs may be necessary i.e. multiple IDs referring to the same object) and Location (of the described asset, usually as a URL).
Hence Description was considered to have a similar level of complexity to the other elements if it had sub-elements including things like Title, Abstract…. and possibly “intended purpose” and other less formal information that may be of use especially in the ‘F’ of FAIR.
The general direction of travel of the community thinking, has been to get away from simple attributes or properties (punched card columns mode of thinking as someone put it) and to allow much richer metadata – as required for machine-to-machine processing as well as human - configured as a fully connected graph of relationships between (sub-)elements using formal syntax and declared semantics.
However, the whole purpose of the RDA metadata element set discussion was to come up with whatever consensus the community could achieve – hence the forum for discussion provided by MIG in and between plenaries.
With best wishes
Keith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: ***@***.***
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org>
Sent: 26 May 2020 20:03
To: ***@***.***; Metadata IG <***@***.***-groups.org>
Subject: Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element
Filled it out, interesting to think about it.
Not having been a member at previous discussions, I was pretty shocked Title did not appear in the list, as I would have put it #2. Likely I am missing something.
Is there a single document you can point me to that summarizes what "the current list" represents? Metadata elements for what content types and what end uses?
John
========================
John Graybeal
Technical Program Manager
Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal
Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research
650-736-1632 | ORCID 0000-0001-6875-5360
Keith,
Thanks, I wondered if the sub-elements was the answer to the question. That all makes sense now, I apologize for taking you all down a confusing path.
I think what is tricky is that there is a link for each metadata element in the survey, and it takes the clicker to a page defining Description in a very general way. This is confusing for people who assume that's authoritative, and/or haven't been involved with the work your group has been doing. Maybe some introductory text in the survey could clarify the categorical nature and use 'Title' as an example, if not already there.
Good luck with the survey!
John
From: Keith Jeffery
Sent: 27 May 2020 10:00
To: ***@***.***; ***@***.***
Subject: RE: [rda-metadata-ig] Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element
John, all –
Many thanks for the emails concerning ‘Title’.
I note Rebecca replied already with links to various bits of history since RDA Plenary 2 (Washington). MIG has been active for > 7 years (initial discussions at Gothenburg) so there has been a lot of history!
If I may be permitted to explain a little more: the short answer is that the Description Element is meant to be a container with sub-elements (like most of the other elements). The Description element could include Title (or Name or Subject), Abstract and any other sub-elements the community wanted; that has been the purpose of discussions at MIG meetings at RDA plenaries and material in the various google docs (one per element) between plenaries.
Keywords is a separate element because the community (i.e. those RDA members who attended MIG meetings, placed text into the google docs or corresponded in other ways) believed (rightly in my opinion) that there is a difference between keywords from a controlled ontology (vocabulary/thesaurus) and ‘free text’ material as expected in the Description element.
Looking at other elements it is clear they have some degree of complexity. Provenance, for example, can be very complex with an extensive syntax and semantics. The same is true of Quality, and most of the other elements - excepting Unique Identifier (although federated IDs may be necessary i.e. multiple IDs referring to the same object) and Location (of the described asset, usually as a URL).
Hence Description was considered to have a similar level of complexity to the other elements if it had sub-elements including things like Title, Abstract…. and possibly “intended purpose” and other less formal information that may be of use especially in the ‘F’ of FAIR.
The general direction of travel of the community thinking, has been to get away from simple attributes or properties (punched card columns mode of thinking as someone put it) and to allow much richer metadata – as required for machine-to-machine processing as well as human - configured as a fully connected graph of relationships between (sub-)elements using formal syntax and declared semantics.
However, the whole purpose of the RDA metadata element set discussion was to come up with whatever consensus the community could achieve – hence the forum for discussion provided by MIG in and between plenaries.
With best wishes
Keith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: ***@***.***
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Show quoted text -From: ***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org>
Sent: 26 May 2020 20:03
To: ***@***.***; Metadata IG <***@***.***-groups.org>
Subject: Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element
Filled it out, interesting to think about it.
Not having been a member at previous discussions, I was pretty shocked Title did not appear in the list, as I would have put it #2. Likely I am missing something.
Is there a single document you can point me to that summarizes what "the current list" represents? Metadata elements for what content types and what end uses?
John
========================
John Graybeal
Technical Program Manager
Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal
Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research
650-736-1632 | ORCID 0000-0001-6875-5360

Members of the RDA Metadata IG,
We wanted to send a reminder to those who haven't yet taken the survey to
select the priority of the RDA Metadata Elements to please do the survey.
*The most efficient way to do the survey is to check the list of elements
at the top of the survey, write down the numbers of the elements in your
priority order, and use that list to fill in the survey. It should take you
less than 2 minutes to fill in the survey.*
*Link to survey: https://bit.ly/3emXK0s *
In addition, our last email generated an interesting discussion on why
Title was missing from the element set. In reality, it isn't but this
helped us to understand that there needs to be a better explanation of the
metadata element set. The email responses certainly assisted in clarifying
some of the thinking that has happened in MIG over the years. We hope such
discussion improves the element set – both conceptually and as documented. A
good example of how the high-level elements can be unpacked is Description
. The Description Element is a container with
sub-elements (like most of the other elements), which could include Title
(or Name or Subject), Abstract and any other sub-elements the community
wanted; that has been the purpose of discussions at MIG meetings at RDA
plenaries and material in the various google docs (one per element) between
plenaries.
Keywords (terms) is a separate element because the
community (i.e. those RDA members who attended MIG meetings, placed text
into the google docs or corresponded in other ways) believed that there is
a difference between keywords from a controlled ontology
(vocabulary/thesaurus) and ‘free text’ material as expected in the
Description element.
The general direction of the community thinking has been to get away from
simple attributes or properties (punched card columns mode of thinking as
someone put it) and to allow much richer metadata – as required for
machine-to-machine processing as well as human-configured as a fully
connected graph of relationships between (sub-)elements using formal syntax
and declared semantics.
We want to encourage everyone to comment in the googledocs for each element
so – hopefully – we can soon reach a RDA community consensus and start to
utilize the canonical rich element set (with defined syntax and semantics)
to support FAIR.
Thank you,
Rebecca Koskela
Keith Jeffery
Alex Ball