news and thoughts on and around the development
of the iCite net
by Jay Fienberg
posted: Dec 8, 2004 6:56:16 PM
I think it'd be fair to assume, based on this blog (and perhaps even based on some of my other blogs), that I have crackpot tendencies. I do, and I try to keep them in check—I realize there is only so much crackpot anyone can take—even me.
I am a big fan of David Weinberger's work, and think his recent writings about the social-philosophical implications of data about people, which he generally refers to as metadata about people, are very interesting.
But, I'm afraid my inner crackpot is getting the better of me when, every time he writes about metadata, I try to point out that his use of the concept of metadata over-complicates his points, which are basically about what more simply could be called just data (for examples, see my comments on David's blog, and in posts on this site, via this search on my site and this search on David's site).
I basically think David is writing about an important topic, and feel engaged by the writing. But, in order not to become the world's foremost metadata crackpot, I'd really be helped by something like the gestures feature I'm trying to build into the iCite net that would allow me, instead of writing this, to non-verbally link rolling eyeballs and a "what you talking about, Willis" faces to the "implicit metadata" and "explicit metadata" phrases in David's recent Implicit or creepy? post (on Corante's Operating Manual for Social Tools).
Anyway, I'm trying to say less words about this in an effort to not be a total crackpot about it. Other than the metadata phrases, I think David is making interesting and important points. And, definitely check-out danah boyd's follow-up post, Cobot and Data that Matters. (Oh, and how we do appreciate the word data, and not metadata, being in that title.)
permalink | comments {2} · trackbacks {0}
also available as: rss · rss2 · rdf · atom
Comment by: Jay Fienberg · http://icite.net/blog/
posted: Dec 8, 2004 11:03:43 PM
Thanks for your comment, David.
I guess one I issue I'd suggest then, about your usage of "metadata", is that your points come across as being based a technical distinction between data and metadata, but that distinction isn't being made (at least, not technically).
So, I keep having this response: why is this about metadata? why not just data? where's the distinction?
As I've said, I think you can say what you're saying about data in general (and, say it more simply). So, by what distinction are you saying things about metadata, and not about data in general?
Note: All comments and trackbacks are moderated. Spam is deleted. Other comments are approved as promptly as possible.
Note: Older posts no longer accept new comments or trackbacks.
« prev post
The contents and other reasons content management systems fail
» next post
Blogging style, software and historical RSS
blog archive
2006: jan · feb · mar · apr may · jun · jul · aug sep · oct · nov · dec 2005: jan · feb · mar · apr may · jun · jul · aug sep · oct · nov · dec 2004: jan · feb · mar · apr may · jun · jul · aug sep · oct · nov · dec 2003: may · jun · jul · aug sep · oct · nov · dec first post: April 30, 2003 highlight views: Spammers' Choice
Jay elsewhere online
Jay Fienberg - the official home page
Wrong Notes - the music blog of the Ear Reverends
Fine & Full, aka, a fine and full burger
Sociomobilepoetextologia (moblog, currently inactive due to lack of proper mobile)
to enjoy roll
sites I like to read when I start from here
· Anastasia Fuller
· Andy Baio
· Biz Stone
· Boris Mann
· Bre Pettis
· Chris Dent
· Danny Ayers
· Dare Obasanjo
· David Czarnecki
· David Weinberger
· Don Park
· Evan Williams
· Greg Narain
· Jason Kottke
· Jim Benson
· Lucas Gonze
· Marc Canter
· Matt May
· Matt Mullenweg
· Michal Migurski
· Nancy White
· Rebecca Blood
· Reg Cheramy
· Richard MacManus
· Sam Ruby
· Shelley Powers
· Tim Bray
· danah boyd
Comment by: David Weinberger · http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger
posted: Dec 8, 2004 9:35:11 PM
I'm not here suggesting a technical distinction between data and metadata. But the way most of us use the terms (if we do use the terms, which I guess is part of your point), the photo I send to you is the data and the caption is metadata, as is the fact that I sent it at 11:06pm. It's all ultimately data and it's all ultimately bits, but I think that the terms capture useful non-tech distinctions. OTOH, maybe it does just complicate things. On the third hand, it does make me sound like I know what I'm talking about. Until you catch me at it.