Filed under: metrics
The Weinberger thoughtfully transcribed what sounds like a cheerful, fast-paced panel on metadata. What I like best about the session is that most people got hung up on the terms and implementations currently being used, and didn’t get down to any kind of serious discussion of where metadata comes from and how to allow and support multiple overlapping schemas.
Instead there were brief discussions about empirics: why people have done things, where there is consensus and where everyone does their own thing. I don’t think they even managed to touch on the issue of how often people don’t metadatalize things ideally according their own preferences. The fact that everyone is different doesn’t mean that they don’t regularly make ‘typos’ (or whatever the equivalent is when you’re trying to annotate, contextualize, metadatify, classify… there must be a word for this in librarianship).
For my part, now that the bar for linguistic acrobatics is being set by the growing abusonomy of modern almostl33t-speek, I will try to help people overcome their %@&!sonomy and “prototag” fixations by insisting on referring to all such entities as “metadata,” or some verbal fauximile thereof.
Technometadata: *nomy |
etech | joho[ho]
Metadata (classifications, fauxonomies, etc) …