I liked the Wikipedia article that explained databases. I love how Wikipedia manages to "dumb down" a lot of concepts so that I can actually understand them. Sure, some of it was over my head. But a lot of it (the part about replication, security, etc.) made a lot of sense.
The Overview of the Dublin Core Data Model was probably a bit too "techie" for me. However, I was able to get that it's about describing resources that have properties and that the values of these properties can have string-values. I appreciated the discussion about the semantic refinement, since words and how they're interpreted have a HUGE impact on being able to retrieve that information easily.
And then we come to Anne J. Gilliland's article about Metadata. I guess I was surprised to learn that metadata doesn't have to be digital. I think I was all caught up in how metadata is all about computers.
I also thought some things presented in the wikipedia article abour databases was over my head but for the most part understiid what it was saying. I found the examples of practical use helpful. Example: the data warehouse being used to sum weekly totals so that the information can be analyzed.
ReplyDeleteI also thought that metadata was all about computers, so I appreciated the section "little-known facts about metadata".
Yes, each discipline has its own specialized vocabulary, and it'd be crazy to force all of them to find a common one. Can you imagine lawyers and clothing manufactures (Fruit of the Loom for example) having to come to common ground on the meaning of the word "brief"? Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteThe metadata article made the challenges faced by Pittsburgh's Digital Research Library more understandable. If each institution described their collections in their own way it would be a metadata mess making it more difficult to search through the collection. By using the Dublin Core Elements they can unify specific metadata as well as allowing the institutions individual preferences.
ReplyDelete