Comments on: Comparing metadata requirements for OERs (part 2) http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/2009/08/31/comparing-metadata-requirements-part-2/ Cetis Blogs Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:47:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.22 By: JohnR http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/2009/08/31/comparing-metadata-requirements-part-2/#comment-68 Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:24:02 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/?p=443#comment-68 @Peter That’s an interesting point. One of the issues we’re looking at in the development programme is how to improve the search engine visibility of OERs and this is a key issue for any resource. However, the metadata remains very important for a number of reasons, briefly:
1) the resources are also likely to be made available through specific applications which use the metadata to support refined and (more) precise searching as well as being likely to be used for the local management of resources
2) not all the resources in question are text or have related text
3) such metadata provides a step toward a web of linked data and may be sueful when considered limited sections of the web (searches within defined domains)
4) the information in question is used by aggregation services (of which there are already several for OERs)
I’m sure we’ll come back to this throughout the programme

]]> By: Phil’s JISC CETIS blog» Blog Archive » About metadata & resource description (pt 1) http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/2009/08/31/comparing-metadata-requirements-part-2/#comment-67 Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:54:50 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/?p=443#comment-67 […] our online support session for the UKOER programme, some of which John has summarized (1 2 3), instead of giving participants a definition of what metadata is we gave them a choice and asked […]

]]> By: Lorna http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/2009/08/31/comparing-metadata-requirements-part-2/#comment-66 Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:02:47 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/?p=443#comment-66 It’s notable that this was really the only time identifiers came up in the entire discussion.

]]> By: Peter Graves http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/2009/08/31/comparing-metadata-requirements-part-2/#comment-65 Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:04:11 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/?p=443#comment-65 Seems to me that with modern search technology all of this meta is redundant, making your content easy to find by anyone based on what you actually put on the page, rather than hidden meta that may or may not represent the page content.

Is this not just a heavyweight solution to a non-problem?

]]> By: JohnR http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/2009/08/31/comparing-metadata-requirements-part-2/#comment-64 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:46:09 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/?p=443#comment-64 @Andy identifier/ url came in third along with title – though far fewer people replied in that bit of the discussion.

]]> By: John’s JISC CETIS blog » Comparing metadata requirements for OERs (part 3) http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/2009/08/31/comparing-metadata-requirements-part-2/#comment-63 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:48:48 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/?p=443#comment-63 […] programme compared with the requirements for the Jorum deposit tool and the DiscoverEd aggegator 2) how the UKOER requirements compared to the information projects thought would be necessary for […]

]]> By: Andy Powell http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/2009/08/31/comparing-metadata-requirements-part-2/#comment-62 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:53:59 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/?p=443#comment-62 It seems amazing (to me) that, in a Web world, identifier/URL is not seen as the critical piece of information needed for ‘cite’ – am I missing something?

]]> By: Twitted by ambrouk http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/2009/08/31/comparing-metadata-requirements-part-2/#comment-61 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:08:13 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/johnr/?p=443#comment-61 […] This post was Twitted by ambrouk […]

]]>