Week 6 Readings
Gilliland, Introductions to Metadata 
This article begins with a definition, and I was glad to see it. It's a term that I often hear and one that people seldom stop to define. The definition was straightforward: data about data. It's another one of those terms that people in different areas of the information field use differently, depending on what they do about it. This makes sense but does not make it easier for a beginner.
Metadata once belonged to information professionals, but now that it's online it is not just ours anymore. Others can work with it, and often do it as well as the professionals do. They don't just use it, either. There is user-created metadata when the user "participates in web-content creation". I had a bit of a "huh?" moment when I read that phrase. What it means is a lot simpler than it sounds. When people post youtube videos or pictures to Flickr, write a blog or have a Facebook page, they add to the data that is online. They are boosting metadata, and it is cheaper than having professionals do it all the time. However, I was not surprised to read that the con that goes with that pro is that the quality is often questionable and not as trustworthy.
The features of metadata are defined based on whether they work intrinsically, within the system, or extrinsically, in associations outside of it. Structure seems to be the feature that weds the other two, content and context, because it works both within and without the set of data.
At this point, the article describes areas of the information field. That caught my attention and interest. It discusses archives and libraries together because they are generally in sync concerning the development of standards and systems of handling data. Library metadata in particular is focused on users being able to access it, which makes sense to me. That is the purpose of the information in the library. Museums did not collaborate with libraries and archives; only in the late 90's did they make connections concerning how these standards might apply to them. I can see how they would view themselves as different from a library. However, I am surprised that it took them as long as it did to see the relationship between their services and information and that of libraries and archives.
The article then pursues the various types and functions of metadata. The types are organized into how they are used, which is practical. It surprises me when I take a closer look at these apparently complex ideas and find that they are based on common sense. But that is very much the case here! For example, administrative metadata handles the managing of the data, and technical metadata is about the functioning of it. Makes sense to me! Out of the six functions of metadata, two of them were different than I expected. One function is to validate the data, basically to evaluate the information for authoritativeness. It seems important, but I didn't expect it somehow. It also determines disposition of data,which means that it decides if it will be included, modified, or taken out. This coincides with a little known fact about metadata, which is that it is more dynamic than people may think. I did think that information was more set than it really is. Lastly, I did not realize that gathering and keeping up the metadata would be expensive, but I do agree that it would be worth the expense if it increases the availability of the information, upholds legal issues, and is educational. The open source format is very much the way of the future, legal issues can get complicated and hard to keep up with, and as a teacher, I support the education of any student of any age and level.

Miller, Dublin Core Data Model 
This was one of those more technical readings that I do not believe I understood fully. In fact, I am sure that I did not! However, I did grasp these salient points: 1. The author wants to clarify the progress of the Dublin Model, its role in relationship to other systems, and how it works in general. 2. There needs to be a balance between formalizing the standards and language involved and being flexible about it. For example, it needs to be written in the proper code and in a controlled vocabulary, yet the international nature of the model means that the different languages across the globe do need to be taken into account and the standards need to be flexible for the same reason. This seems to be a mature, practical consideration moving forward in the further development of this model.

Meloni, Mendeley  
One of the pre-assignments for starting at the I-school was for me to download either Mendeley or EndNote. Mendeley was recommended as being more generally applicable. I did download Mendeley, as it seemed to be the more useful of the two, though I also got EndNote. I'm pretty thorough  when it comes things like that. At any rate, I have Mendeley, and have done nothing with it so far. It was interesting to see what it is and what I am going to do with it.
Once I have written papers, articles, and other scholarly documents, I can post them to Mendeley. This would be good for storage; the term used to express that is bibliographic database. It is a research management tool that is interoperable, is connected to the Web, and can be added to. All three characteristics sound useful to me. It does more than store my documents, though. It will enable to me to organize them, to share my work with others, and to benefit from others' scholarly research. One other feature of it that is interesting, and connected to its Web function, is the cloud-based storage. This would make it open access and available to the professional community.
It does seem like the kind of software that would help me work in the field. For now, it will help me to enter into it.