VocabControl

First we had content, then not long after that we had metadata, although no-one called it that. Now we need parametadata – the metadata about metadata!

Neither metadata nor parametadata are anything new, but what is new is how central they have become to all sorts of business processes. People think there is something modern and techie about metadata, but ever since the first author signed their initials on a piece of work, or added a title, we have had metadata. Librarians are just one group who have been using metadata for centuries.

Thanks to technological advances, there is now a huge amount of processing that can be done with metadata, indeed that needs to be done if we are to have any idea what assets we have available. Metadata has become the active driver of numerous business processes. You couldn’t operate a computer without the metadata that tells you the name of a file, its location, when it was last saved, etc. and this sort of metadata is so ubiquitous that nobody tends to think about it too much. Now metadata is so pervasive, it is becoming increasingly important to talk about it and define different aspects and types.

One key distinction is the one between objective and subjective metadata. Subjective metadata refers to classification, tagging, taxonomies, etc. This metadata is subjective because it is always possible to argue about it. Objective metadata on the other hand is uncontroversial and typically process-driven – a file format is what it is, the time the file was last saved might cause consternation after a PC crash, but is unarguable. However, there is actually surprisingly little uncontroversial metadata. Even something like a title can be edited and changed – what do you do when some content acquires a popular or folk title that is not the same as its official title? This happens a lot with comedy sketches and songs, but can also happen to names of projects, working groups, etc.

Parametadata (or meta-metadata) is another subset of metadata – it is the metadata about the metadata, giving its provenance, date of creation, technical specifications, etc. Once you start to think about metadata as content in its own right, it becomes obvious that just as you wish to track the author, title, and so on of the core content, so too you need to track the author(s), provenance, date of creation and latest update of the metadata as well. For subjective metadata, parametadata becomes hugely useful. Because you can have multiple classifications of an asset, it is very important to track the source – distinguishing between author added keywords, indexer keywords, and folksonomic tags, for example – so that people can tell where a tag has come from.

As long as you know where tags have come from, you can decide whether or not you want to trust in their authority. In an increasingly muddled web, it is helpful to be told the source of a comment or an opinion in order to try to distinguish sound information from propaganda or uninformed speculation. Anecdotally, many people who were initially excited about citizen review sites – rating hotels, etc. – have now given up on them on the grounds that the people who contribute to them tend to have some kind of axe – or worse – to grind, so you can’t take them seriously. Even reviews that aim to be fair may not be relevant if the reviewer is too dissimilar to the reader. The perfect holiday for a group of teenagers is unlikely to be what a retired couple are looking for. So any review needs to carry sufficient information so that the reader can work out how relevant the content is to them. A good review site would carry a range of reviews aimed at different audiences.

Similarly, a rich navigation system needs to offer a range of tags and taxonomies, but these will only be useful when there is sufficient parametadata to tell the user where each scheme or tag came from, who created it, how up to date it is, etc. From a user perspective, being able to choose from a range of well-documented navigation systems means they can make an informed choice about whether to have fun with the randomness of folksonomic tags, to follow a specialist taxonomy in order to learn how a subject is handled by experts, or to use a guide constructed by the content curators for a general audience.

Interface designers can use the parametadata to make different sources of metadata distinct – with different visual or other cues, for example, to indicate different navigation environments. This means you can create a range of different “navigation worlds” and let your users wander to and fro while always making sure they know where – in terms of trust and authority – they are.

Internet of Things — An action plan for Europe is an EU document describing the EU’s response to “The Internet of Things” (IoT), as technologies such as
RFID, Near Field Communication (NFC), and wireless sensor/actuators now allow objects to be tagged and linked to information.

The EC is financing “research projects in the area of IoT, putting an emphasis on important technological aspects such as microelectronics, non-silicon based components, energy harvesting technologies, ubiquitous positioning, networks of wirelessly
communicating smart systems, semantics, privacy- and security-by-design, software emulating human reasoning and on novel applications.”

As well as obvious information management issues, there are interesting implications for privacy and security. For example, will the IoT reduce property crime or just create a black market for false tags or fake URIs and geolocators? Will criminals set up their own systems to track shipments of contraband? Will we get “object identity theft” with contraband labelled as legitimate goods? This seems to me to be a categorisation issue.

It might be fun to be able to tag my stuff with my own folksonomic labels to help me sort my house out or pack to go on holiday, and then make sure I don’t leave things in hotel rooms, but I suspect it might waste more time than it saves!

Another issue is how long before we extend this kind of tracking to ourselves? A friend said to me the other day that we should all have our own URI, which would save having to update our records when people change their phone numbers, email, addresses, etc. Add that to the geolocation tracking that is already happening, and no-one will get to be anywhere without it being recorded. Is that really useful, or scarily Big Brotherish?

There is a lovely metpahor of “Favela chic” (subversive, non-commerical) versus “Gothic High Tech” (repressive regime) in Twitter and The Web of Flow: Talking with Stowe Boyd & Bruce Sterling about Microsyntax, Squelettes, Favela Chic and the State of Now which I found via Open Intelligence (on Twitter!).

Reuters Wants The World To Be Tagged. This article on the ReadWrite Web blog is about the new API (does anyone else pronounce this “appy”?) sent out into the world by Reuters. They are hoping it will encourage tagging of articles in a way they can then harvest. It sounds like it is fairly basic at the moment - it is only recognising a few bits and pieces like people and places. It would be interesting to see how well it does with people like Jack London and places like Congo (Brazzaville) and Congo (Kinshasa). When I worked on a similar project we had lots of problems disambiguating the Guineas (Papua New, Equatorial, etc) and Salvadors (El or San) in particular. I assume they have lots of authority files backed up by rules that will sort all those out. It would be nice to see “under the bonnet” as it were!

Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata is a well-written paper that outlines some key issues in the usefulness and functioning of folksonomies. It includes some interesting ideas about “feedback loops” that motivate social tagging, ideas for further research, and a set of useful links to other articles.

Library of Congress Photos on Flickr should be an interesting experiment in how well social tagging can sort out content. It meets the criteria of having a lot of content that is currently very hard to find, and comprehensive recall is not essential (if some photos remain unfindable despite the social tagging, it’s a shame but not a disaster). The Library presumably has decided it would rather have any tagging than none and is reluctant to spend money. It also has a high profile and most likely the good will of the experienced taggers of the Flickr community. I would think it would also provide the librarians with a good starting point for organising their image metadata if they decide they want or need to do some more formal sorting out further on down the line. Definitely one to watch.

I’ve now spoken to two more taxonomy consultants who both expressed the opinion that folksonomies should be embraced, but only where they really work, and that they can’t always substitute for formal systems. Would anyone entrust their child’s health to the opinions of a random crowd, rather than a thorough examination by a trained and qualified expert? On a different theme, if you want a comprehensive stock control inventory so that you know how many items to order from your wholesaler, you want to know exactly how many widgets you have in your warehouse, not how many widgets, plus doodahs, plus gizmos, you have and hope when you’ve added them up you have the right number. You want to know that whenever a shipment has arrived, it has been logged on the system as a box of widgets, and not as whatever whoever happened to log the delivery felt like calling it at the time. On the other hand, you want your customers to be able to search for widgets using any term that springs to mind, and if it helps them to add a tag to your website labelling widgets “grandma’s buttons” so they can find and order them easily another time, then let them do it!