Unfortunately, I read the required readings for next week and not this week. I printed out the readings, read the email, read the heading on the unit and thought I had the right readings until just now when I rechecked and realized there were four readings listed instead of the original three. I will try and get the reading notes for this week posted as soon as I can. In the mean time, here are the reading notes for next week.
Gilliland's Metadata
While I have heard of metadata before, it was mostly descriptive metadata that I was familiar with so it surprised me to see all of its other functions. I do not quite comprehend the types of data standards but found the tables listing the types, functions, and attributes and characteristics very informative. I also liked this article because it applied directly to libraries and archives which helped me to understand the other articles.
Miller's DCDM
It took me a bit to get past some of the jargon and the "simple examples" I could see how this article directly applied to the first one. Basically, everything has metadata but everyone will use different metadata to describe each object. The DCMI is trying to find ways to overcome this by first identifying some of the issues that need to be overcome (language, definitions, specificity, etc) and then finding what is needed to overcome this so that metadata is more easily searchable. I found the conclusion a bit lacking.
Wiki's Database
This was one of those great articles that takes something I thought I knew and upon reading it makes me realize that I have no idea what I am talking about. I can see a connection between databases and metadata specifically in the section Indexing. Indexing is used to make running a query more efficient which, in turn, requires the input of metadata as well as the searching of metadata to find results. One thing I am confused with about this article is that I can quite figure out what a database is "physically" in a computer. Is it a form of software, is it on the hard drive, etc...
The Dublin Core Data Model article was very confusing to me. I had to search for more information in order to understand the concept of what it did or does. The Initiative was in 1995, so I am assuming that we have benefited for the past 15 or so years. I guess everyone also has different vocabulary knowledge when reading and/or researching!
ReplyDeleteIn regards to what you found so confusing about the Wikipedia article on the Database, I think I might be able to clear that up. Under the assumption we are looking at the segment on "Architecture," I believe this issue is rooted upon a choice of words. When the the author said "physically," I believe the person was trying to define the "internal level" as how the data *actually* ends up being organized, contrary to the "external level," which appears to be an *assumption* as of how the data is supposed to be organized. The "conceptual level" is supposed to serve as some kind of a common ground between how the user believes the data should be organized and how the program actually organizes the data. Once again, this is all based on my observations, so my explanation could be inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteHi Jessica,
ReplyDeleteLike you, I was surprised at everything surrounding 'metadata' as noted in Gilliland's article. Since this term started, I've just been considering metadata from a limited point of view, so I'm glad to have a deeper understanding now. As far as the DCMI, check out this website I found, http://www.dublincore.org/
It has much more up to date information than our article. It's nice to see this project throughout its growth process. Maybe you'll want to join the International Conference; it's in PITTSBURGH next month!