RE: [Metadata] Academic involvement in Metadata

[Helen Pickering <h.v.pickering@stir.ac.uk>]

The joys of terminology!  Sorry to be confusing. The point I'm coming from
is that we are considering incorporating dublin core elements into a
catalogue, which academics can search to select materials for reading lists.
So we are not using metadata per se, rather we are using the elements to
enhance standard bibliographic data. All well and good, but it is not clear
that there is any demand from academic staff for this enhanced information.
It's this last point I'm interested in - theoretically speaking, is there
justification for doing this if there is no demand. (Practically speaking, I
think there are good reasons for doing it, but I can't find any data from
academic staff to support it!)

Helen

> ----------
> From: 	Godfrey Rust[SMTP:godfreyrust@dds.netkonect.co.uk]
> Sent: 	12 February 1999 19:18
> To: 	metadata@doi.org
> Subject: 	Re: [Metadata] Academic involvement in Metadata
> 
> I'm a little puzzled by this, but I expect its a difference of
> terminology.
> 
> In the DOI approach (and all the other main initiatives, as far as I can
> tell), all identifiers, titles or descriptive elements of any kind are
> "metadata", so it's impossible to search for and select resources without
> it. People use metadata constantly, whether they realise it or not. The
> questions are about the organisation, structure and location of metadata,
> not whether or not its a good thing.
> 
> It reminds me of the comment I heard a few weeks ago that "metadata is all
> very well, but it'll never replace cataloguing". Metadata's just a new
> word
> for a very old set of problems that have now become of central importance
> because of the move to digital. 
> 
> Does that makes sense, Helen, or am I missing a point here?
> 
> Godfrey
> 
> 

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