An Alternative Approach to Metainformation Conceptualisation and Use

  • Cesar Gonzalez-PerezEmail author
  • Patricia Martin-Rodilla
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10650)


The growing needs to analyse and interpret large amounts of complex information has generalised the use of information about information, often called metainformation (or metadata). Metadata approaches and standards have proliferated in fields as diverse as medicine, meteorology, geography, cultural heritage or education, among others. These approaches are supposed to assist us in documenting our information by recording who has documented what, when and how, among other concerns, making the tasks of interpreting the data much easier. However, metadata approaches often suffer from a number of issues. To start with, there are too many, and users are often daunted by the task to choose among them. Secondly, metadata approaches seem to re-invent the wheel by assuming that metadata is essentially different to data (or metainformation to information) and for this reason needs a new and different set of languages and tools. Finally, many metadata approaches mix together conceptual concerns and implementation issues, thus violating well-known engineering principles of modularity and layering.

This paper presents a review of existing metadata approaches from a conceptual modelling perspective, identifies the major issues with them, and proposes a new approach based on the ConML conceptual modelling language. This new approach starts from the basis that metainformation is a particular kind of information and, as a consequence, everything that we know about information can also be applied to metainformation.


Metadata Metainformation Conceptual modelling ConML 


  1. 1.
    Bargmeyer, B.E., Gillman, D.W.: Metadata standards and metadata registries: an overview. In: International Conference on Establishment Surveys II, Buffalo, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    DCC, 004-2017: Digital Curation Centre, University of Edinburgh.
  3. 3.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C.: A conceptual modelling language for the humanities and social sciences. In: Rolland, C., Castro, J., Pastor, O. (eds.) 2012 6th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), pp. 396–401. IEEE Computer Society (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C.: Modelling temporality and subjectivity in ConML. In: Wieringa, R., Nurcan, S. (eds.) 7th IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2013), pp. 1–6. IEEE Computer Society, Paris (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G.: A unified foundational ontology and some applications of it in business modeling. In: Missikoff, M. (ed.) Enterprise Modelling and Ontologies for Interoperability, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, p. 125. (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hodgins, W., Duval, E.: Draft standard for learning object metadata. IEEE 1484.12.1-2002 (2002).
  7. 7.
    Incipit: ConML Technical Specification. Incipit, CSIC (2016).
  8. 8.
    ISO: ISO 21127:2006 Information and Documentation – A Reference Ontology for the Interchange of Cultural Heritage Information (2006).
  9. 9.
    ISO: ISO 19115-1:2014 Geographic information – Metadata (2014).
  10. 10.
    ISO: ISO/IEC 11179, Information Technology – Metadata Registries (MDR) (2015).
  11. 11.
    ISO/IEC: Information Technology – Object Management Group Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) Part 1: Infrastructure. ISO/IEC 19505-1:2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liskov, B., Wing, J.M.: A behavioral notion of subtyping. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 16(6), 1811–1841 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Digital Publications LLC: Glossary of Software Engineering Terms (2005).
  14. 14.
    Macêdo, D.J., Shintaku, M., De Brito, R.F.: Dublin core usage for describing documents in Brazilian government digital libraries. In: International Conference on Dublin Core And Metadata Applications, pp. 129–135 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Malta, M.C., Baptista, A.A., Parente, C.: A DCAP for the social and solidarity economy. In: 2015 Proceedings of International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, DCMI, pp. 20–29 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mendez, E., Van Hooland, S.: Metadata typology and metadata uses. In: Handbook of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies, vol. 1 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mougenot, I., Desconnets, J.-C., Chahdi, H.: A DCAP to promote easy-to-use data for multiresolution and multitemporal satellite imagery analysis. In: International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, pp. 10–19 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    NISO: Understanding metadata. National Information Standards, p. 20 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Olsen, L.: Directory Interchange Format (DIF): writer’s guideGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Park, J.-R., Childress, E.: Dublin core metadata semantics: an analysis of the perspectives of information professionals. J. Inf. Sci. 35(6), 727–739 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Powell, A., Nilsson, M., Naeve, A., Johnston, P.: DCMI Abstract Model (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Radatz, J., Geraci, A., Katki, F.: IEEE standard glossary of software engineering terminology. IEEE Std. 610121990(121990), 3 (1990)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    RDA: Research Data Alliance (2017).
  25. 25.
    Riley, J.: Glossary of Metadata Standards. Indiana University Libraries (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robertson, W.D., Leadem, E.M., Dube, J., Greenberg, J.: Design and implementation of the national institute of environmental health sciences Dublin core metadata schema. In: International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, pp. 193–199 (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Salvetti, O., Pieri, G., Di Bono, M.: WP9: a review of data and metadata standards and techniques for representation of multimedia content. MUSCLE. Network of Excellence FP6-5077-52 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sicilia, M.-A.: Handbook of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies. World Scientific, Singapore (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Taylor, C.F., Field, D., Sansone, S.-A., Aerts, J., Apweiler, R., Ashburner, M., Ball, C.A., Binz, P.-A., Bogue, M., Booth, T.: Promoting coherent minimum reporting guidelines for biological and biomedical investigations: the MIBBI project. Nat. Biotechnol. 26(8), 889–896 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tort, A., Olivé, A.: A computer-guided approach to website design. In: Yu, E., Dobbie, G., Jarke, M., Purao, S. (eds.) ER 2014. LNCS, vol. 8824, pp. 28–42. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12206-9_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Heritage Sciences (Incipit), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)Santiago de CompostelaSpain

Personalised recommendations