Re: [Metadata] 'Rendering' metadata

[Priscilla Caplan <p-caplan@uchicago.edu>]

This sounds to me to overlap some with what the library/archive/museum
community is calling "administrative" metadata, which can include details
about the date/time/place/agent of creation of the data and technical
information (e.g. the scanner used for a scanned image, color profile,
etc.).  I don't know of any firm standards in this area but there is a lot
of work going on particularly in the area of images (where this data may be
carried in the image header or standalone) and some recommended best
practices are taking shape.  NISO, CLIR and some other groups in the US are
considering co-sponsoring a workshop in the spring to further the
standardization of the content and format of this type of administrative
metadata for images.

p

At 01:59 PM 9/23/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Note:  This, along with several other messages, is being
>forwarded to the list by the administrator, as Sally
>encountered trouble with her original posting.
>
>=========================================
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sally Morris <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>
>To: Metadata list <metadata@doi.com>
>Date: 04 September 1998 09:27
>Subject: 'Rendering' metadata
>
>I wonder whether anyone can answer this question.
> 
>Clearly there is a lot of work going on in many different
>quarters on the (more or less) descriptive metadata which is
>required for resource discovery and related
>activities (e.g. linking);  work is also under way (though
>it's much earlier days) on rights metadata which is required
>to actually carry out a transaction of any
>kind.   (We did, of course, realise at the June workshop
>that there is no clear-cut distinction, and you often need
>m/d which might be considered 'descriptive' for a
>transaction and vice versa).   However, I wonder if there
>isn't a third kind of metadata - that which is needed for
>'rendering', i.e. actually
>opening/playing/whatever the electronic file on the
>recipient's computer.   Some of the necessary information
>will be contained in the file extension (.doc or
>whatever), but isn't a good deal more needed?
> 
>Perhaps some of our more technically minded colleagues could
>comment on whether work is in fact required in this area
>too.   If so, is it appropriate to set up
>another working subgroup to start tackling it?
> 
>Sally Morris
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>Metadata maillist  -  Metadata@doi.org
>http://www.doi.org/mailman/listinfo/metadata
> 

------------------------------------------------------
Metadata maillist  -  Metadata@doi.org
http://www.doi.org/mailman/listinfo/metadata