Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

RO Discussions

Short presentations on collected material

  • Rafa (UPM): Stereotypes, Astronomy ROs
  • Sean (UNIMAN): Annotation ontologies
  • ??: Evolution/versioning/sharing/collaboration/provenance?

Determining contents of deliverables. Which pieces go where? Activity running through all the technical sessions.

Next steps.


  • How much information is enough in an RO?--> "self-containedness"
    • Don't want to have to pick up the phone and call someone.
    • Removal of the need for backchannels.
  • How do I determine if an RO is useful for me?
    • Is this based on the individual that has submitted the RO?
    • Or on the research group that has submitted it?
    • Or on the number of comments received?
    • Or on the workflow language used?
    • Or on the datasets?

Comment (PM): all of the above IMO, this is the "fitness for purpose" (FFP) question that ties in with "Information Quality" in a broad sense. My approach would be to:

    • assume that FFP is determined by any of the factors above. i.e., objective quality measures ("is this image of sufficient resolution and does it come with all the metadata I need"), as well as subjective/qualitative (=trust, reputation)
    • offer a language for expressing FFP conditions, and an interpreter for filtering / "search by quality" / alert of possible quality problems.

It follows that the RO should then contain enough metadata to allow for quality expressions to be formulated and evaluated

Comment (SB): this is related to the notion of information packages being independently understandable from OAIS (see Related Vocabularies and Models). Independently understandable here corresponds to the ability to formulate quality judgements.

  • No labels