Thank you. What appreciate about "library science" for real-world business scenarios is conceptualizes a framework (before tech) that is understandable when have looked for a physical book in a library using metadata (even when did "not" know what metadata meant).
Because library science has a service oriented approach, everything is designed and implemented with consumers and users first and foremost. The definition of a user is very expansive and includes humans, machines and AI. Second comes functional requirements based upon accessibility and interoperability.
Not that enterprises fail to realize this elements. More that the design and implementation phases in library science follow different gates, checks and rigor. Probably helps that library science does not focus on monetization first and foremost?
I love this! When we start peeling the layers of why systems are not compatible, the issue is not with the technology. We see that everything begins with governance and the conceptual model.
Jessica, this is a brilliant, big-picture perspective. I created semantic architectures for years, but without the benefit of theory. I'm now interested in seeing how close they came to the complete model you're explaining.
There is a small but, as per our previous discussion re: "aboutness" of data, perhaps ironic difference between the term 'metadata' in Library Science and the traditional sense of the word metadata being 'about' data.
In the former, Library Science metadata is 'about' a resource. In the latter, metadata are descriptors of the 'data about the resource'. So, where Title, Author, Subject, Category, and Publish Date are components of a record that apply, for example, to an individual book, fields that describe when the record was added, who added it, and the status of the record fall into the second category.
All of the points made about the discipline required to 'get to' semantic interoperability in the enterprise by leveraging knowledge from Library Sciences apply in spades.
Right, but what is being 'described' in Library Science - and in most file and content management applications - is different, for example, than what is being described in structured content, i.e. tables, columns, etc.
I think there's a significant difference there, but I will defer to your expertise.
All true. I guess the real question is (for me, anyway) is whether the apparent differences between "data about a resource and data about data" has any actual effect.
My questions came out of reading Ole's Meta Grid book where he said (or words to this effect) that everything is metadata. I have a hard time with that.
Ah- I see the comparison. The metadata about a resource becomes a metadata record. The record view becomes a bibliographic record and catalogued according to said metadata.
Metadata describing data as in from a database or even spreadsheet has the same purpose of describing aboutness . And a patron profile would still be a record.
So I think you are pointing to the record and the individual metadata elements ?
Correct. As Ole said, metadata can be in more than one place at a time. In the case of a book or file, it is either physically or digitally 'attached' to the item or recorded as rows in a table separate from the individual items.
As you say, once we start collecting information with identical metadata structures then we can use the header of a table as metadata for all of them: 'Recorded Information About the Data' in the table.
The other complicating factor, is that in the case of a collection of records, you can also have what I can 'in-line' metadata: who/what added the record, when was it created, when was it last edited, and what is its current status are all about the record, not the item.
Thank you. What appreciate about "library science" for real-world business scenarios is conceptualizes a framework (before tech) that is understandable when have looked for a physical book in a library using metadata (even when did "not" know what metadata meant).
Because library science has a service oriented approach, everything is designed and implemented with consumers and users first and foremost. The definition of a user is very expansive and includes humans, machines and AI. Second comes functional requirements based upon accessibility and interoperability.
Not that enterprises fail to realize this elements. More that the design and implementation phases in library science follow different gates, checks and rigor. Probably helps that library science does not focus on monetization first and foremost?
I love this! When we start peeling the layers of why systems are not compatible, the issue is not with the technology. We see that everything begins with governance and the conceptual model.
Thanks, Thais!
Jessica, this is a brilliant, big-picture perspective. I created semantic architectures for years, but without the benefit of theory. I'm now interested in seeing how close they came to the complete model you're explaining.
Looking forward to more!
Thank you, Zane. I will be publishing two more articles as part of the metadata series this next week!
Jessica this is why I admire your writing so much
Thank you!
Absolute 🎯 article Jessica … thank you for writing ✍️ this 🫶🏼
Thank you for reading 🫶!
There is a small but, as per our previous discussion re: "aboutness" of data, perhaps ironic difference between the term 'metadata' in Library Science and the traditional sense of the word metadata being 'about' data.
In the former, Library Science metadata is 'about' a resource. In the latter, metadata are descriptors of the 'data about the resource'. So, where Title, Author, Subject, Category, and Publish Date are components of a record that apply, for example, to an individual book, fields that describe when the record was added, who added it, and the status of the record fall into the second category.
All of the points made about the discipline required to 'get to' semantic interoperability in the enterprise by leveraging knowledge from Library Sciences apply in spades.
Librarians work with both planes. That’s why metadata is categorized by type as in descriptive, technical, administrative, structural.
Right, but what is being 'described' in Library Science - and in most file and content management applications - is different, for example, than what is being described in structured content, i.e. tables, columns, etc.
I think there's a significant difference there, but I will defer to your expertise.
Libraries also describe tables and rows. Libraries use databases.
Back to having different shapes and forms of metadata, a record is multifaceted. It’s not just content.
WorldCat: https://www.oclc.org/en/worldcat/inside-worldcat.html
For WorldCat this looks like 1. Bibliographic 2. Knowledge base 3. Registry
But each partner and institution has their own databases and architectures
For example, a library works with patrons (people or customers). Each patron has his or her own db record with history and personal info.
Then there’s the financial aspect of budgets , fees associated with patrons (fines etc) and collection management.
Then there’s the interlibrary loan systems.
The list goes on.
Aboutness as a value and practice is applied to all of these systems.
Not just content.
All true. I guess the real question is (for me, anyway) is whether the apparent differences between "data about a resource and data about data" has any actual effect.
My questions came out of reading Ole's Meta Grid book where he said (or words to this effect) that everything is metadata. I have a hard time with that.
Thanks again for your time!
Ah- I see the comparison. The metadata about a resource becomes a metadata record. The record view becomes a bibliographic record and catalogued according to said metadata.
Metadata describing data as in from a database or even spreadsheet has the same purpose of describing aboutness . And a patron profile would still be a record.
So I think you are pointing to the record and the individual metadata elements ?
Correct. As Ole said, metadata can be in more than one place at a time. In the case of a book or file, it is either physically or digitally 'attached' to the item or recorded as rows in a table separate from the individual items.
As you say, once we start collecting information with identical metadata structures then we can use the header of a table as metadata for all of them: 'Recorded Information About the Data' in the table.
The other complicating factor, is that in the case of a collection of records, you can also have what I can 'in-line' metadata: who/what added the record, when was it created, when was it last edited, and what is its current status are all about the record, not the item.