(Cohen, 1999)
Preservation of information overlaps many different other related aspects of information management, so I won't dwell overly long on the concept of metadata, but I do think that it is important enough in the concept of preservation to get a brief mention. In the context of information preservation, metadata is data about data (metadata, 2008). That is to say that it is information that is used to describe relevant information pertaining to the information it is ascribed to.
For example, if we were to preserve a photograph of a man in front of a bridge, the metadata would contain information about when the photograph was taken, who the man was, which bridge is in the photograph, who the photographer was, and any other relevant information that was known about that photograph. This information is then used in the preservation of the original piece of information (the photograph) in order to provide contextual information related to the photograph that researchers might use.
What value does this information actually have though?
Consider that without the context of any given piece of information there is little value to that information. Take the above example - a photograph of a man and a bridge. If we know nothing other than that we are preserving a photography of a man in front of a bridge we have few was to relate this to other information that we have preserved, and so it cannot be reliably used for reference because we know so little about it. But, since we preserved the contextual information along with the object itself, we have the ability to relate it to other information we have preserved. We know when it was taken, where it was taken, and by who this single piece of information can be referenced by date, location, photographer, the bridge, the type of media used to make the photograph, and even the style of photography - all of these smaller pieces of information can be used to better preserve the original by providing us 'handles' for drawing connections between it and other preserved information (Frendo, 2007).
Preserving information requires an understanding of the context of the information being preserved if it is to be useful to anyone in the future.
works cited:
Cohen, D. X. (Producer). (1999). Futurama. [Television series]. U.S.A.:Fox.
Frendo, R. (2007). Disembodied information: metadata, file plans, and the intellectual organisation of records. Records Management Journal, 17(3), 157-.
metadata. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved May 20, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metadata
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
How would one control the metadata since almost everyone can tag almost every single picture? I could tag it as a picture of a naked bear and of course, those who click on the tag will find the picture of a bridge.
It is interesting to consider how the value of information itself can be determined in consideration of the intellectual environment: as a single individual or grouping of people. Would the single person's value be considered less of less importance than a group mentality?
I like your closing statement, which gives purpose to preservation. It is noble to preserve information objects, but ignorant to keep items without proper ways to identify and connect them to each other.
If all we do is store stuff, then we are no better than a rat building a nest out of whatever material is available.
Regarding Montgomery's comments above, I would have to say that this is something that has to be taken into account whenever we preserve information. Tagging, is the sense that I understand it, has to do with unrestricted terminology being applied to information in order to allow for a wider capability in sorting and searching. Along with this loose configuration of terms I would always include some form of controlled vocabulary sorting so that there was always a fixed pattern to the organization of information that may be referred to as needed.
In doing so, the controlled vocabulary provides a known value that can be used in automation, while the folksonomic tags could be used by those who prefer that method. I see them both as being complimentary in this context.
In regards to Beman's comments, I would say that that is conditional - in some instances the individual would be subordinate to the whole, while in others they would not be. For example, if we have the oral history of a community, would not the testimony of an individual who lived in that community their entire life be more valuable than that of a group of people who only passed through? Conversely, the group opinion might be more important if they were expert witnesses to the information at hand, say a group of scientists, compared to the testimony of an individual who has no scientific basis for their input.
I think that in the context of preservation it is important to take into consideration all aspects of the related information in order to form the most complete picture possible if we wish to retain as much value as we can.
Post a Comment