Minimal metadata concept

Gary-
At present MIG dies not have a position on minimal metadata. We are working with use cases and cooperating with MSDWG, DICIG and the Provenance Group to try to determine requirements.
As a personal opinion I define required metadata as that necessary for the task in hand (very pragmatic!). For me just PID and name does not help much for any substantive data processing. I agree PID and name is a start, but I would wish to add sufficient additional metadata elements for (a) discovery; (b) contextualisation (determining whether the dataset is relevant, appropriate (e.g. in precision, accuracy) for the purpose at hand; (c) processing i.e. detailed, domain-specific metadata such as a schema that software can access and use to self-configure to process the dataset.
In the (a) discovery category I would cite examples like DC, CAT, eGMS, CKAN, INSPIRE. In the (b) contextualisation category I know only CERIF (Common European research Information Format). In the (c) detailed, domain specific category there are hundreds of examples but they are not generally applicable (across all domains and datasets) since they are domain-specific.
So, to come back to minimum metadata I believe it needs a unique ID (PID); a name (as a user-understandable handle although computers need ontologies to understand the name); a URL (for the dataset identified and named) and then as much additional metadata as required for the purpose of discovery, contextualisation or processing.
I stress this is a personal view but perhaps this email will stimulate further discussion within MIG.
Thanks for raising this issue – I hope this helps!
Best
Keith
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: ***@***.***
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
Past President ERCIM www.ercim.eu (***@***.***)
Past President euroCRIS www.eurocris.org
Past Vice President VLDB www.vldb.org
Fellow (CITP, CEng) BCS www.bcs.org
Co-chair RDA MIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/metadata-ig.html
Co-chair RDA MSDWG https://rd-alliance.org/working-groups/metadata-standards-directory-work...
Co-chair RDA DICIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/data-context-ig.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: gbergcross=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Gary
Sent: 01 August 2014 21:06
To: Metadata IG
Subject: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept
Does this group can a position on the idea of Minimal Metadata? The idea was brought up at time in the Data Foundations and Terminology (DT) WG. Some thought that we should define a minimal set such as a name and PID for anything managed as a digital object.
Thoughts?
--
Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/minimal-metadata-concept....
Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/44734

Hello,
I would suggest to have a look at the latest version of the metadata scheme of DataCite. This could be a good basis for any digital object not just for data.
DataCite has a couple of minimal (there required) and optional items. These are mainly intended to provide sufficient basic information for a human-readable web page on a data set.
Furthermore there are a couple of items which can be used by programs to get access to the data or to the related metadata (relatedMetadataScheme). The metadata could be expressed in a domain-specific metadata scheme (like DDI for social science data). This way, a program can use of the basic identification and citation information, and could possibly make use of elaborated domain-specific metadata. The basic metadata should then just comprehend a reference to the domain-specific metadata instance. It is basically a delegation idea.
Cheers,
Achim
References:
DataCite Metadata Schema v 3.0
http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/index.html
Documentation
http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/doc/DataCite-MetadataKernel_v3....
XML Schema
http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/metadata.xsd
--
GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
Department: Monitoring Society and Social Change
Team: Social Science Metadata Standards
Visiting address: B2 1, 68159 Mannheim, Germany
Postal address: P.O. Box 122155, 68072 Mannheim, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)621 1246 262
Fax: +49 (0)621 1246 100
E-mail: ***@***.***
www.gesis.org
- Show quoted text -From: gbergcross=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Gary
Sent: Freitag, 1. August 2014 22:06
To: Metadata IG
Subject: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept
Does this group can a position on the idea of Minimal Metadata? The idea was brought up at time in the Data Foundations and Terminology (DT) WG. Some thought that we should define a minimal set such as a name and PID for anything managed as a digital object.
Thoughts?
--
Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/minimal-metadata-concept....
Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/44734

Achim –
Thanks for this; it is more-or-less what I was proposing with the 3-layer model to have discovery, contextual and detailed/domain-specific metadata.
All require some form of unique ID and some form of address to get to the actual digital object as absolute minimum; an added name assists especially human-readable but – without ontologies – doesn’t help computer readable/understandable access.
I am keen to collect views – and get maximal discussion to try to get convergence and closure - on this important topic
Best
Keith
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: ***@***.***
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
Past President ERCIM www.ercim.eu (***@***.***)
Past President euroCRIS www.eurocris.org
Past Vice President VLDB www.vldb.org
Fellow (CITP, CEng) BCS www.bcs.org
Co-chair RDA MIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/metadata-ig.html
Co-chair RDA MSDWG https://rd-alliance.org/working-groups/metadata-standards-directory-work...
Co-chair RDA DICIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/data-context-ig.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: joachim.wackerow=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of wackerow
Sent: 02 August 2014 11:57
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept
Hello,
I would suggest to have a look at the latest version of the metadata scheme of DataCite. This could be a good basis for any digital object not just for data.
DataCite has a couple of minimal (there required) and optional items. These are mainly intended to provide sufficient basic information for a human-readable web page on a data set.
Furthermore there are a couple of items which can be used by programs to get access to the data or to the related metadata (relatedMetadataScheme). The metadata could be expressed in a domain-specific metadata scheme (like DDI for social science data). This way, a program can use of the basic identification and citation information, and could possibly make use of elaborated domain-specific metadata. The basic metadata should then just comprehend a reference to the domain-specific metadata instance. It is basically a delegation idea.
Cheers,
Achim
References:
DataCite Metadata Schema v 3.0
http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/index.html
Documentation
http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/doc/DataCite-MetadataKernel_v3....
XML Schema
http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/metadata.xsd
--
GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
Department: Monitoring Society and Social Change
Team: Social Science Metadata Standards
Visiting address: B2 1, 68159 Mannheim, Germany
Postal address: P.O. Box 122155, 68072 Mannheim, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)621 1246 262
Fax: +49 (0)621 1246 100
E-mail: ***@***.***
www.gesis.org
From: gbergcross=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Gary
Sent: Freitag, 1. August 2014 22:06
To: Metadata IG
Subject: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept
Does this group can a position on the idea of Minimal Metadata? The idea was brought up at time in the Data Foundations and Terminology (DT) WG. Some thought that we should define a minimal set such as a name and PID for anything managed as a digital object.
Thoughts?
--
Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/minimal-metadata-concept....
Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/44734
Achim –
Thanks for this; it is more-or-less what I was proposing with the 3-layer model to have discovery, contextual and detailed/domain-specific metadata.
All require some form of unique ID and some form of address to get to the actual digital object as absolute minimum; an added name assists especially human-readable but – without ontologies – doesn’t help computer readable/understandable access.
I am keen to collect views – and get maximal discussion to try to get convergence and closure - on this important topic
Best
Keith
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: ***@***.***
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
Past President ERCIM www.ercim.eu (***@***.***)
Past President euroCRIS www.eurocris.org
Past Vice President VLDB www.vldb.org
Fellow (CITP, CEng) BCS www.bcs.org
Co-chair RDA MIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/metadata-ig.html
Co-chair RDA MSDWG https://rd-alliance.org/working-groups/metadata-standards-directory-work...
Co-chair RDA DICIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/data-context-ig.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: joachim.wackerow=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of wackerow
Sent: 02 August 2014 11:57
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept
Hello,
I would suggest to have a look at the latest version of the metadata scheme of DataCite. This could be a good basis for any digital object not just for data.
DataCite has a couple of minimal (there required) and optional items. These are mainly intended to provide sufficient basic information for a human-readable web page on a data set.
Furthermore there are a couple of items which can be used by programs to get access to the data or to the related metadata (relatedMetadataScheme). The metadata could be expressed in a domain-specific metadata scheme (like DDI for social science data). This way, a program can use of the basic identification and citation information, and could possibly make use of elaborated domain-specific metadata. The basic metadata should then just comprehend a reference to the domain-specific metadata instance. It is basically a delegation idea.
Cheers,
Achim
References:
DataCite Metadata Schema v 3.0
http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/index.html
Documentation
http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/doc/DataCite-MetadataKernel_v3....
XML Schema
http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/metadata.xsd
--
GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
Department: Monitoring Society and Social Change
Team: Social Science Metadata Standards
Visiting address: B2 1, 68159 Mannheim, Germany
Postal address: P.O. Box 122155, 68072 Mannheim, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)621 1246 262
Fax: +49 (0)621 1246 100
E-mail: ***@***.***
www.gesis.org
- Show quoted text -From: gbergcross=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Gary
Sent: Freitag, 1. August 2014 22:06
To: Metadata IG
Subject: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept
Does this group can a position on the idea of Minimal Metadata? The idea was brought up at time in the Data Foundations and Terminology (DT) WG. Some thought that we should define a minimal set such as a name and PID for anything managed as a digital object.
Thoughts?
--
Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/minimal-metadata-concept....
Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/44734

joachim,
I'll look at the DataCite model.
BTW, below are some of the Wickett, Renear & Urban recommendations of MD
"properties" for data collections (EDM & Dublin Core are the model
context). But the relations imply the entities that get connected such as
identifier, title, creator, rights, audience etc.) :
1. *Collection identity properties* assign and manage properties of and
relationships to individual collections. These properties meet the
requirement of treating collections as individual objects, and provide for
collection description generally. In the EDM context, these properties
include *dc:title*, *dcterms:alternative* (for an alternative title of a
collection), and any *dc:identifier* statements for a collection,
2. *Access properties* support access to and presentation of digital
representations of collections via the web. In addition to the functional
role these properties play in access, they also represent the details of
hosting digital representations of collections. In the EDM context, these
properties include *edm:isShownAt*, and *edm:rights*, and are attached
to the instance of *ore:Aggregation* that specifies the digital
collection context of a given collection.
3. *Aggregator context properties* record information essential to the
operation of data creation and aggregation systems. These properties meet
the requirement to record information about the stewardship of collections,
including institutions creating and hosting digital representations of
collections. In the EDM context, these properties include *edm:provider*
and *edm:dataProvider*, and are attached to an instance of
*ore:Aggregation*.
4. *Collector context properties* reflect aspects of the creation of a
collection via the gathering together of individual items, representing the
intent of a curator or scholar with respect to the collection and facts
about the collection process. These properties meet the requirement to
record information that reflects the context implied by collection
membership. In the EDM context, these properties include
*dc:creator* (applied
to the creator of the collection), *dcterms:extent*,
*dcterms:accrualPolicy*, *dcterms:audience*, and*dc:description*. These
properties are attached to an instance of *edm:ProvidedCHO* that
represents a collection.
5. *Secondary collector context properties* describe relationships
between collections and reflect the embedding or inclusion of one
collection-level entity into another collection-level entity. These
properties include *dc:relation*, *dcterms:isPartOf* and
*dcterms:hasPart*, and are attached to an instance of *edm:ProvidedCHO*.
6. *Item-related properties* indicate attributes of the particular items
that have been gathered into a collection. These properties give a more
complete view of a collection, particularly in scenarios where item-level
descriptions are not available for direct access in a repository. In the
EDM context, these properties include *edm:itemCreator*,*edm:itemGenre*,
*cld:dateItemsCreated*, *dcterms:spatial*, and *dcterms:temporal*, and
are attached to an instance of *edm:ProvidedCHO* that represents a
collection. When the information represented by these properties is
represented at the item level, it may be possible to derive the
collection-level properties using inference rules based on relationships
between collection and item metadata (Wickett, Renear & Urban, 2010
).
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
NSF INTEROP Project
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0955816
SOCoP Executive Secretary
Independent Consultant
Potomac, MD
240-426-0770

Gary –
Thanks for this.
Classifying metadata elements by function (for what purpose it is used) is a useful approach. Of course since the same element(s) may be used for more than one purpose one ends up with elements mentioned many times but nonetheless that is better than missing any elements necessary.
One problem with using DC for this is that it is not truly multilingual (one can define the language of the data object, not the metadata) and it is hard to describe a French-English dictionary in DC. The real problem is that DC subsumes relationships as implied 1:1 relationships between attributes (i.e. by having title and creator as attributes it implies a relationship between them without any semantics or well-formed cardinality). Worse it implies both a functional and referential relationship that may well not be there. Finally the temporal aspect is totally missing (which means that provenance is not representable).
The use of relationship terms in the edm domain such as IsPartOf is fine but limited – what percentage or fractional part of (e.g. creator’s contribution or that part in dataset 2 derived from dataset 1).
Good discussion – let’s continue!
Best
Keith
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: ***@***.***
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
Past President ERCIM www.ercim.eu (***@***.***)
Past President euroCRIS www.eurocris.org
Past Vice President VLDB www.vldb.org
Fellow (CITP, CEng) BCS www.bcs.org
Co-chair RDA MIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/metadata-ig.html
Co-chair RDA MSDWG https://rd-alliance.org/working-groups/metadata-standards-directory-work...
Co-chair RDA DICIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/data-context-ig.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: gbergcross=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Gary
Sent: 04 August 2014 23:09
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept
joachim,
I'll look at the DataCite model.
BTW, below are some of the Wickett, Renear & Urban recommendations of MD "properties" for data collections (EDM & Dublin Core are the model context). But the relations imply the entities that get connected such as identifier, title, creator, rights, audience etc.) :
1. Collection identity properties assign and manage properties of and relationships to individual collections. These properties meet the requirement of treating collections as individual objects, and provide for collection description generally. In the EDM context, these properties include dc:title, dcterms:alternative (for an alternative title of a collection), and any dc:identifier statements for a collection,
2. Access properties support access to and presentation of digital representations of collections via the web. In addition to the functional role these properties play in access, they also represent the details of hosting digital representations of collections. In the EDM context, these properties include edm:isShownAt, and edm:rights, and are attached to the instance of ore:Aggregation that specifies the digital collection context of a given collection.
3. Aggregator context properties record information essential to the operation of data creation and aggregation systems. These properties meet the requirement to record information about the stewardship of collections, including institutions creating and hosting digital representations of collections. In the EDM context, these properties include edm:provider and edm:dataProvider, and are attached to an instance of ore:Aggregation.
4. Collector context properties reflect aspects of the creation of a collection via the gathering together of individual items, representing the intent of a curator or scholar with respect to the collection and facts about the collection process. These properties meet the requirement to record information that reflects the context implied by collection membership. In the EDM context, these properties include dc:creator (applied to the creator of the collection), dcterms:extent, dcterms:accrualPolicy, dcterms:audience, anddc:description. These properties are attached to an instance of edm:ProvidedCHO that represents a collection.
5. Secondary collector context properties describe relationships between collections and reflect the embedding or inclusion of one collection-level entity into another collection-level entity. These properties include dc:relation, dcterms:isPartOf and dcterms:hasPart, and are attached to an instance of edm:ProvidedCHO.
6. Item-related properties indicate attributes of the particular items that have been gathered into a collection. These properties give a more complete view of a collection, particularly in scenarios where item-level descriptions are not available for direct access in a repository. In the EDM context, these properties include edm:itemCreator,edm:itemGenre, cld:dateItemsCreated, dcterms:spatial, and dcterms:temporal, and are attached to an instance of edm:ProvidedCHO that represents a collection. When the information represented by these properties is represented at the item level, it may be possible to derive the collection-level properties using inference rules based on relationships between collection and item metadata (Wickett, Renear & Urban, 2010).
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
NSF INTEROP Project
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0955816
SOCoP Executive Secretary
Independent Consultant
Potomac, MD
240-426-0770
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 6:56 AM, wackerow <***@***.***> wrote:
Hello,
I would suggest to have a look at the latest version of the metadata scheme of DataCite. This could be a good basis for any digital object not just for data.
DataCite has a couple of minimal (there required) and optional items. These are mainly intended to provide sufficient basic information for a human-readable web page on a data set.
Furthermore there are a couple of items which can be used by programs to get access to the data or to the related metadata (relatedMetadataScheme). The metadata could be expressed in a domain-specific metadata scheme (like DDI for social science data). This way, a program can use of the basic identification and citation information, and could possibly make use of elaborated domain-specific metadata. The basic metadata should then just comprehend a reference to the domain-specific metadata instance. It is basically a delegation idea.
Cheers,
Achim
References:
DataCite Metadata Schema v 3.0
http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/index.html
Documentation
http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/doc/DataCite-MetadataKernel_v3....
XML Schema
http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/metadata.xsd
--
GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
Department: Monitoring Society and Social Change
Team: Social Science Metadata Standards
Visiting address: B2 1, 68159 Mannheim, Germany
Postal address: P.O. Box 122155, 68072 Mannheim, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)621 1246 262
Fax: +49 (0)621 1246 100
E-mail: ***@***.***
www.gesis.org
From: gbergcross=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:gbergcross=***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Gary
Sent: Freitag, 1. August 2014 22:06
To: Metadata IG
Subject: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept
Does this group can a position on the idea of Minimal Metadata? The idea was brought up at time in the Data Foundations and Terminology (DT) WG. Some thought that we should define a minimal set such as a name and PID for anything managed as a digital object.
Thoughts?
--
Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/minimal-metadata-concept....
Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/44734
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/minimal-metadata-conc...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/44734

Just to follow up on the DataCite work, below is there list of 5 Mandatory
metadata
*DataCite Mandatory Properties*
1 Identifier (with type sub-property)
2 Creator (with name identifier sub-properties)
3 Title (with optional type sub-properties)
4 Publisher
5 PublicationYear
Now of course this is for citation data so things like publisher make sense
here and as noted by Jeffrey and others there may be other minimum metadata
needed for other types of data.
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
NSF INTEROP Project
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0955816
SOCoP Executive Secretary
Independent Consultant
Potomac, MD
240-426-0770

Dear all,
While I appreciate that your immediate concern is the basic description of
a file, I wonder if some work I did a few years back might also be relevant
(an attempt to develop modular guidance to 'fill the gap' between the level
you're currently addressing and very-domain-specific MI requirements). I
stopped working on the project due to lack of interest, but perhaps it
might be worth reviving?
The content is here:http://mibbi.sourceforge.net/foundry.shtml
And there is a simple browse/search/compilation tool here:
http://mibbi.sourceforge.net/micheckout.shtml
(though please note that the first part of the 'modules' list contains
whole MI documents such as MIAME).
Best wishes, Chris Taylor.

Chris –
Thanks for this contribution – very interesting. There is almost no overlap with the ‘classical’ discovery metadata sets such as Dublin Core, CKAN and not much with DCAT (just the dataset and person). Crudely, the modules on the right hand side are domain specific and on the left there is considerable intersection with CERIF.
Thanks again.
All –
Any more contributions to this valuable discussion?
Best
Keith
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: ***@***.***
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
Past President ERCIM www.ercim.eu (***@***.***)
Past President euroCRIS www.eurocris.org
Past Vice President VLDB www.vldb.org
Fellow (CITP, CEng) BCS www.bcs.org
Co-chair RDA MIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/metadata-ig.html
Co-chair RDA MSDWG https://rd-alliance.org/working-groups/metadata-standards-directory-work...
Co-chair RDA DICIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/data-context-ig.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: chrisftaylor=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of chrisftaylor
Sent: 08 August 2014 14:46
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept
Dear all,
While I appreciate that your immediate concern is the basic description of a file, I wonder if some work I did a few years back might also be relevant (an attempt to develop modular guidance to 'fill the gap' between the level you're currently addressing and very-domain-specific MI requirements). I stopped working on the project due to lack of interest, but perhaps it might be worth reviving?
The content is here:http://mibbi.sourceforge.net/foundry.shtml
And there is a simple browse/search/compilation tool here: http://mibbi.sourceforge.net/micheckout.shtml
(though please note that the first part of the 'modules' list contains whole MI documents such as MIAME).
Best wishes, Chris Taylor.
- Show quoted text -On 7 August 2014 14:56, Gary <***@***.***> wrote:
Just to follow up on the DataCite work, below is there list of 5 Mandatory metadata
DataCite Mandatory Properties
1 Identifier (with type sub-property)
2 Creator (with name identifier sub-properties)
3 Title (with optional type sub-properties)
4 Publisher
5 PublicationYear
Now of course this is for citation data so things like publisher make sense here and as noted by Jeffrey and others there may be other minimum metadata needed for other types of data.
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
NSF INTEROP Project
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0955816
SOCoP Executive Secretary
Independent Consultant
Potomac, MD
240-426-0770
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 6:56 AM, wackerow <***@***.***> wrote:
Hello,
I would suggest to have a look at the latest version of the metadata scheme of DataCite. This could be a good basis for any digital object not just for data.
DataCite has a couple of minimal (there required) and optional items. These are mainly intended to provide sufficient basic information for a human-readable web page on a data set.
Furthermore there are a couple of items which can be used by programs to get access to the data or to the related metadata (relatedMetadataScheme). The metadata could be expressed in a domain-specific metadata scheme (like DDI for social science data). This way, a program can use of the basic identification and citation information, and could possibly make use of elaborated domain-specific metadata. The basic metadata should then just comprehend a reference to the domain-specific metadata instance. It is basically a delegation idea.
Cheers,
Achim
References:
DataCite Metadata Schema v 3.0
http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/index.html
Documentation
http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/doc/DataCite-MetadataKernel_v3....
XML Schema
http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/metadata.xsd
--
GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
Department: Monitoring Society and Social Change
Team: Social Science Metadata Standards
Visiting address: B2 1, 68159 Mannheim, Germany
Postal address: P.O. Box 122155, 68072 Mannheim, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)621 1246 262
Fax: +49 (0)621 1246 100
E-mail: ***@***.***
www.gesis.org
From: gbergcross=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:gbergcross=***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Gary
Sent: Freitag, 1. August 2014 22:06
To: Metadata IG
Subject: [rda-metadata-ig] Minimal metadata concept
Does this group can a position on the idea of Minimal Metadata? The idea was brought up at time in the Data Foundations and Terminology (DT) WG. Some thought that we should define a minimal set such as a name and PID for anything managed as a digital object.
Thoughts?
--
Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/minimal-metadata-concept....
Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/44734
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/minimal-metadata-conc...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/44734
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/metadata-ig/post/minimal-metadata-conc...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/44734

Thanks Keith. Our intent was indeeed to align with DC (in the first
instance) had the work continued...
Incidentally, I'd like to clarify that the main work of MIBBI (now defunct)
-- i.e., collating and promoting community-generated MI documents --
continues under the Biosharing project (biosharing.org).
Best wishes, Chris.
On 8 August 2014 15:28, ***@***.*** <
***@***.***> wrote: