Priorities of Metadata Element

26 May 2020
Groups audience: 

I have to agree with John that from my experience #1 should be a meaningful/informative title unique to the described resource. Working on catalogs for USGIN, US National Geothermal Data System, and EarthCube, my experience is that the practical ask from most data providers is a useful title and a URL that will get you to the resource in some way. They should be #1 and #2.
In the ideal world, a title, content-rich description (that can be indexed and analyzed for semantics), distribution information (not just a URL to some unspecified location—should indicate if it’s a landing page, service endpoint, data download link…), license information, provenance would be my wish list. That’s based on the idea that provenance is a deeper content item, includes who, how, what, when, why information about the origin of the resource.
I know I’m late to the game on this… can’t make it to all the RDA meetings!
- Show quoted text -From: ***@***.*** <***@***.***>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 3:07 PM
To: Metadata IG <***@***.***>
Subject: [rda-metadata-ig] Fwd: [rda-metadata-ig] Survey to select priorities of each RDA Metadata Element
I responded to John Graybeal but didn't copy all the members of the IG. For those who are not familiar with how we arrived at the current list of
high-level elements, here is what I shared with John
There really isn't a single document. I'll try to provide some history - the helpful people in the RDA Secretariat changed the web pages for the groups so
it's not as easy to find material from prior RDA plenary meetings. Existing material was moved around without the assistance of the IG. The best place to
look for older material is in the repository (
This effort started out with the metadata principles - these are listed on the MIG web page ( but
you'll have to scroll down a bit. We gathered use cases from various domains/projects. These are in the repository - there are 3 pages so best to start with page 3 ( for the use case template and use cases submitted. From the use cases submitted, we looked for a set of common elements.
The notes from the P4 meeting are a good place to start ( The MetadataGroupsPositionandPlans-Elements-Linkages.pptx from P6 ( is also helpful to understand the directions.
Each element has its own google doc so that members can comment on them - that's the list at the beginning of the survey and it's also on the MIG
main page.
Take a look at these and then let me know what else would be helpful.
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:03 PM John Graybeal <***@***.*** > wrote:
Filled it out, interesting to think about it.
Not having been a member at previous discussions, I was pretty shocked Title did not appear in the list, as I would have put it #2. Likely I am missing something.
Is there a single document you can point me to that summarizes what "the current list" represents? Metadata elements for what content types and what end uses?
On May 26, 2020, at 11:12 AM, rkoskela via Metadata IG <***@***.*** > wrote:
Dear members of the RDA Metadata IG,
We would like some assistance in determining the priority order of which data elements
should be unpacked first. As you recall, the list of metadata elements was proposed at previous RDA plenary meetings. The current list of 17 high-level elements was identified at the P8 meeting held in Denver, Colorado. The list has been shared with and reviewed by many of the domain groups. The 17 high-level elements need to be unpacked to produce the lists of sub-elements that more closely resemble how the elements might be represented in a real metadata scheme. We would like feedback on the order of elements for the unpacking process.
The most efficient way to do the survey is to check the list of elements at the top of the survey, write down the numbers of the elements in your priority order, and use that list to fill in the survey. It should take you less than 2 minutes to fill in the survey.
Link to survey:
Thank you for your assistance,
Rebecca Koskela
Keith Jeffery
Alex Ball
Full post:
Manage my subscriptions:
Stop emails for this post:
John Graybeal
Technical Program Manager
Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal
Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research
650-736-1632 | ORCID 0000-0001-6875-5360

  • Jan Dvorak's picture

    Author: Jan Dvorak

    Date: 27 May, 2020

    Dear all,
    I'm also surprised a dataset name/title is not in the list.
    The Findability of FAIR would be hard to achieve without it, in my
    opinion; at least as far as humans are involved!
    It would be very interesting to see the views about it from the
    submitters of the original use-cases that are collected at the bottom of .
    Is it just a blind spot, or is there a deeper reason?
    With kind regards
    Jan Dvorak
    researcher, Institute of Information Studies and Librarianship, Charles
    University, CZ
    research information system analyst, Computing and Information Centre,
    Czech Technical University, CZ
    board member and CERIF Task Group leader, euroCRIS

submit a comment