In a message dated 00-10-05 21:57:44 EDT, Stephen G. Thomas wrote:

<< My only point was that
 interoperability is not a word in the English language. Neither is
 metadata, and especially metadata vocabularies. >>

I'm afraid I must emphatically disagree with Dr. Thomas and agree with Jay
Heuman's and Cate Cooney's posts.  In the first place, "interoperability"
certainly IS a word in the English language, according to my 6-year-old
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, which indicates a 1977 origin.  Even
if it hadn't made it into the dictionary yet, it wouldn't be too difficult to
determine what it probably meant, since "inter" is a standard prefix.
"Compatibility" certainly is a close synonym, but it doesn't mean precisely
the same thing.

"Metadata" isn't in my dictionary, but I'd be surprised if it isn't in the
newest comprehensive editions.  This is a word which is very much in vogue in
archival circles (it cropped up in virtually every session I attended at the
Society of American Archivists' annual meeting last month) and among those
who work with databases.  It's extremely useful, and I'm unaware of any easy
alternative for it.  Although I'm something of a language purist myself (as
some on this list with whom I've sparred can tell you), I'm very much in
favor of coining new words as they are needed.  This is one way in which the
English language (or any other language) grows and is enriched.  Although
"meta" isn't as common or as well-known a prefix as "inter", it's well
established, and the formation of "metadata" is perfectly logical.  How
"metadata" is used is not as obvious as "interoperability", however, and you
are clearly handicapped if you can't find it in a dictionary.  But this
doesn't mean it isn't "in" the language: it most certainly is.
Lexicographers constantly seek new words with established meanings to add to
their dictionaries.  Although many new words have broad usage, others are
more arcane and specialized.  These specialized words get into dictionaries
also, usually after some quota of published instances is tallied and
specialists in the field verify their existence and correctness.
Dictionaries are descriptive--they report words and how they are already
being used.  Lexicographers are hesitant to admit that their dictionaries are
also PREscriptive, but after all, that's their ultimate function as far as
users are concerned.  I am confident that someday a standard dictionary will
verify that "metadata" is an OK word (while implicitly suggesting, in terms
of prescription, that spelling it some other way or using it to mean
asparagus is probably not OK).

"Jargon" or specialized language usage is often annoying to those who are not
familiar with it and who encounter it unexpectedly because it makes them feel
excluded.  It is unkind and counterproductive to thrust the specialized terms
of your field on people who are not likely to understand them.  If I give a
lecture on my specialty to a general audience, I'm certainly not going to
throw specialized vocabulary at them without explanation, but I think it
would be unkind NOT to introduce them to some of the unfamiliar terms to let
them know they exist.  If I were to explain to a general audience how I
catalogue photographs, how my database is structured, and the standards I
use, you can bet that at some point I would be saying, "Now this is what we
call metadata..."

While those who understood the post may be a small subset of Museum-L
subscribers, I think it's important, to provide a little perspective, to
remember that those of us in the museum field are a small subset of the total
populace, and the museum world has its own specialized vocabulary.  We
frequently see announcements for museum jobs which a general audience would
not understand.  Registrarial position announcements stipulate a familiarity
with accessioning procedures, for example.  Joe Sixpak on the street doesn't
know what accessioning means (even though "accession" is in the dictionary),
yet I don't see objections that such announcements should be written in
simpler, plainer language.  And "deaccession"?  Forget it--that's jargon, Joe
might object (and NOT in my dictionary).  However, if Joe doesn't know about
accessioning and deaccessioning, perhaps he's not qualified for the job?

The original message, which bothered some by the density of specialized
terms, phrasing, and acronyms, clearly was intended for a highly specialized
audience.  It seeks responses from people experienced in the specialty, some
of whom could logically be found among Museum-L subscribers.  If it's Greek
to you, you're probably not one of the people they want to hear from.  I
understood most of it, but not enough to make me feel qualified to respond.
But I don't demand that I must understand everything I read.  However, as far
as concise language is concerned, part of the point of specialized language
or "jargon" IS to be concise; to "translate" it into "plain" language is
likely to lengthen the message.

I noticed that the message says you must belong to CIMI.  If you DO belong to
CIMI, you know what it stands for and probably understood the whole thing.
If you DON'T belong to CIMI, it wasn't intended for you, and whether or not
you understood it, it seems to me, isn't very relevant.  Certainly nothing to
make a fuss about.  I think the only way the message should have been
modified would have been to announce at the very top: "For CIMI members only."

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).