ARTÍCULO VISIONARIO Y TEÓRICO
Metadata as a Methodological Commons:
From Aboutness Description to Cognitive Modeling
Wei Liu1, Yaming Fu1,2†, Qianqian Liu1
1Shanghai Library (Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of Shanghai), No. 1555 Huaihai Middle Road Xuhui District,
2School of Information Management at Nanjing University, No. 163 Xianlin Avenue, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210093, Porcelana
Shanghai 200031, Porcelana
Palabras clave: Metadata; Methodological Commons; Content Architecture; Data Modeling; Ontology; Semántico
Web; Semantic Formalization; Web3.0; Metaverse
Citación: Liu, w., Fu, Y.M., Liu, Q.Q.: Metadata as a Methodological Commons: From Aboutness Description to Cognitive
Modeling. Data Intelligence 5(1), 289-302 (2023). doi: doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00189
Recibió: Octubre 10, 2022; Revised: Noviembre 15, 2022; Aceptado: December 12, 2022
ABSTRACTO
Metadata is data about data, which is generated mainly for resources organization and description,
facilitating finding, identifying, selecting and obtaining information(cid:99). With the advancement of technologies,
the acquisition of metadata has gradually become a critical step in data modeling and function operation,
which leads to the formation of its methodological commons. A series of general operations has been
developed to achieve structured description, semantic encoding and machine-understandable information,
including entity definition, relation description, object analysis, attribute extraction, ontology modeling,
data cleaning, disambiguation, alignment, mapping, relating, enriching, importing, exporting, servicio
implementación, registry and discovery, monitoring etc. Those operations are not only necessary elements in
semantic technologies (including linked data) and knowledge graph technology, but has also developed into
the common operation and primary strategy in building independent and knowledge-based information
sistemas.
en este documento, a series of metadata-related methods are collectively referred to as ‘metadata methodological
commons’, which has a lot of best practices reflected in the various standard specifications of the Semantic
Web. In the future construction of a multi-modal metaverse based on Web 3.0, it shall play an important role,
Por ejemplo, in building digital twins through adopting knowledge models, or supporting the modeling of
Autor correspondiente: Yaming Fu (Correo electrónico: fuyaming_uk@yahoo.com; ORCID: 0000-0001-9736-4916).
†
(cid:99) The four FRBR user tasks (https://www.librarianshipstudies.com/2017/09/functional-requirements-for-bibliographic-records-
frbr.html).
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
mi
d
tu
d
norte
/
i
t
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
/
/
/
5
1
2
8
9
2
0
7
4
4
0
8
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
9
pag
d
/
.
t
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Metadata as a Methodological Commons: From Aboutness Description to Cognitive Modeling
the entire virtual world, etc.. Manual-based description and coding obviously cannot adapted to the UGC
(User Generated Contents) and AIGC (AI Generated Contents)-based content production in the metaverse
era. The automatic processing of semantic formalization must be considered as a sure way to adapt metadata
methodological commons to meet the future needs of AI era.
1. FROM METADATA TO METADATA METHODOLOGICAL COMMONS
1.1 The Emergence and Development Of Metadata
Metadata arises from the need to describe things. It was long before the emergence of the term that the
concept had been existed, which can be traced back to five or six thousand years ago when clay tablets
were used in the Mesopotamia region to record transactions. Alrededor 280 BC, a labeling and classification
system called ‘Pinakes’ was used by the Library of Alexandria to describe information of scrolls, which then
evolved and developed into the library card catalog [1]. Those early and traditional metadata applications
are based on manual descriptions on physical carriers, and can only be managed and utilized manually,
which is the metadata in the ‘pre’ digital age, referring to as ‘Metadata 1.0’ era by Tom Baker, CIO of the
Dublin Core Metadata Organization (DCMI).
The term “metadata” was emerged with the development of database technology, as it is normally
required to describe data and tables in database application. Lines of records (usually rows in a table) son
used to document the various attributes of the object being described. This is in fact moving the contents
of the clay tablets or card catalog into the computer and realizing the goal of ‘machine readable’. En
addition, by applying certain structure to objects description, it is achieving the goal of ‘machine computable’
to improve the efficiency of querying and managing metadata with the power of computing. For both tape
file and relational databases that appeared later on, metadata has been used to record information about
data structure and other annotated information. At this stage, it was limited to be used in a closed system,
and the MARC bibliographic data that is widely used in the library was born at this stage, which is the
most typical form of metadata, also known as the ‘Metadata 2.0’ era.
It is in the Digital Age that metadata got developed and became a prominent subject, especially in the
context of digital library construction. In this phase, the ‘information explosion’ makes it very difficult to
find and sift information, and there is an increasing need to obtain useful information in the global network,
so the need of describing and structuring information. The primary goal is to annotate data and objects,
and to support the retrieval need on a large number of commercial and non-commercial, semi-structured
and unstructured library databases. By doing such, metadata is supposed to achieve the goal of organizing,
finding, locating, selecting, and to facilitate the transformation of information into knowledge, which is the
core value in the Digital Age, and this stage can be regarded as the ‘Metadata 3.0’ era.
With the development of technology, the structural unit (p.ej. cadena, lista, data set, etc.) that can be processed
by computing technology evolves from information to ‘knowledge’. The ‘computability’ of machine refers
to not only the management of digital information, semantic description and coding, metadata descriptions
and coding specifications. Through standardized coding, ‘knowledge’ can be delivered and integrated
among machines, enabling the goal of ‘machine-understandable’ and ‘machine-interoperable’. This can be
290
Data Intelligence
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
mi
d
tu
d
norte
/
i
t
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
/
/
/
5
1
2
8
9
2
0
7
4
4
0
8
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
9
pag
d
/
t
.
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Metadata as a Methodological Commons: From Aboutness Description to Cognitive Modeling
understood as the process of facilitating the transformation of knowledge into ‘intelligence’, and further
accomplishing the function of ‘smart data’ by supporting data mining or machine learning, even supporting
the automatic construction of knowledge systems. The manual way of standardizing metadata in 2.0 y
3.0 era is obviously unsustainable, therefore it is crucial to promote the application of metadata standard
specifications to achieve its automatic generation, codificación, linking and visualization to the full extent. El
technology of artificial intelligence (AI) can be applied to the entire metadata generation process, y esto
is the anticipation of ‘Metadata 4.0’ era.
1.2 The Formation of Metadata Methodological Commons
As more databases become accessible via network, metadata descriptions and applications need to
follow a unified standard for consistent understanding and data interoperability. Looking back at the history
of metadata, it is not only as simple as providing objective description, the purpose of description (why to
describe) and the method (how to describe it) are all of significance. Many factors such as convenience
and costs need to be considered and balanced, as well as the consideration about extensibility and
compatibility. It should be noted that there is always a trade-off in implementing metadata, and a reasonable
balance needs to be found between various factors.
Metadata methods are often reflected in metadata standards and their best practices, as well as various
metadata models related to application systems. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) is a typical
representative of the standardization of metadata applications, and its development in the past three decades
also represents the main process of the ‘metadata methodology commons’. DCMI was born shortly after
the advent of the World Wide Web. The original intention was to explore the standard specification for the
description and coding of web resources. The word ‘core’ in its name is based on the foresight of this group
of pioneers, who insisted on the basic rule of “small is beautiful”, committed to providing a universal and
simplest set of ‘core’ elements. For the complex things, they recommended a set of extensions, cuales son
led by methodology, rather than directly defining the set of elements, promoting the fulfillment of needs
based on this core.
DCMI not only proposed the Qualified Element Set of resource descriptions, but also put forward the
DCAM Abstract Model (DCAM) which declares the composition of metadata records, and regulated that
Dublin Core Application Profile (DCAP)(cid:100) should be implemented as an extension rule of metadata schema.
Their application achieved a huge success and has been applied on the Internet. En años recientes, DCMI has
also been committed to the development of a Tabular specification for the formal encoding of DCAP, y
proposed an abstract model and coding specification for the basic structure of resource description. DCAP
and DCMI Core Package structure provide a basic technical guarantee for the standardization and functional
implementation of metadata applications, so that the metadata records can be self-describing and self-
interpreting, and be independent of technologies.
(cid:100) The creation of a new metadata schema from available open vocabularies creates what can be called an application profile.
See more at: https://www.dublincore.org/groups/application_profiles_ig/dctap_primer/
Data Intelligence
291
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
mi
d
tu
d
norte
/
i
t
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
/
/
/
5
1
2
8
9
2
0
7
4
4
0
8
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
9
pag
d
.
/
t
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Metadata as a Methodological Commons: From Aboutness Description to Cognitive Modeling
Metadata application has gradually become prevalent, especially in the field of scientific research
databases and cultural heritage management, where many standardization specifications and best practice
of metadata have designed and put into practice. On the Internet space, the knowledge graph technology
based on Schema.org was proposed by search engines such as Google, which made metadata a common
method in supporting Search Engine Optimization (SEO). In addition to this, there is a notable increase in
the use of DC metadata tags (such as dc.title, dc.subject, etc.), which is also a crucial step for reveal
semantics to search engines. The prevalence of metadata applications has effectively improved the recall
and accuracy rate of information systems, helping to reveal the relationship between information and data
from multiple angles, as well as providing solutions for interoperability between different systems. Sin embargo,
at this stage, most of the metadata applications works can only be carried out manually, such as indexing,
extrayendo, organizing, linking, proofreading, etc., and therefore the cost is huge. What is more, the strict
standards often cause inefficiency and varied data quality, and even simple standards might have problems
such as insufficient content description, and lacking usability, etc.. Despite the initial formation of metadata
methods, its methodological commons construction is still in the preliminary stage and has not been widely
usado. It also lacks systematic summary of its achievements and research outputs.
en este documento, we offer a straightforward definition of the metadata methodological commons. It can be
considered as a systematic methodological framework and specifications for the formal description of
content architecture of a specific knowledge system (such as various types of digital libraries), en vez de
merely providing a structured description of the library resources in the local network. The purpose of
metadata methodological commons is to meet the evolving needs of the information system on resource
disclosure, interoperability and long-term preservation in the network environment. The specific functions
may include querying, searching, browsing, accessing, sorting, and even analyzing, visualizing and so on.
2. METADATA AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE
2.1 From Aboutness Description to Semantic Coding
Same as the function of cataloging in traditional libraries, metadata is the foundation in building digital
libraries. It was put forward under the need of cataloging web and digital resources. Before the development
of semantic technology, metadata was simply used to generate structured indexes to support the keyword
retrieval, where knowledge was implicit in structured textual information. The knowledge transfer of such
information systems can only be processed by human, who need to interpret the content after obtaining
información, while semantics cannot be transferred or inter-operated between machines, and not to mention
knowledge integration. Por lo tanto, the early digital libraries usually lacked a holistic, macroscopic knowledge
description system, and did not establish a correlation relationship between entities within the knowledge
sistema; en cambio, it only provided a partial or microscopic description of information resources, y el
function was also limited.
The emergence of the semantic web technology proposes for the first time a complete set of ways to
encode and formalize semantics, supporting the grasp of knowledge through the calculation of semantic
292
Data Intelligence
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
mi
d
tu
d
norte
/
i
t
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
/
/
/
5
1
2
8
9
2
0
7
4
4
0
8
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
9
pag
d
t
.
/
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Metadata as a Methodological Commons: From Aboutness Description to Cognitive Modeling
datos. The basis of semantic web technology is metadata, which is able in achieving ‘machine-processing’;
the generation of metadata coding specifications is capable in solving the computational problems, cual
will achieve the goal of ‘machine-understandable’ issue.
Based on the ‘knowledge representation’ technique, semantic technology implements a formal representation
of First-Order Predicate Logic (es decir., descriptive logic), and generally provides machine-processable encoding
by schema. Specific metadata records also need to be instantiated, eso es, the serialized encoding (cual es
what we usually refer to as metadata encoding) [12]. Strict metadata encoding specifications should be based
on the Resource Description Framework introduced by the World Wide Web Consortium, also known as RDF,
which specifies the triple structure for describing any entity, as well as the formal encoding specifications,
namely RDFS and OWL [11]. In this framework, each piece of metadata is a basic judgment about the
properties of things, and the triples are the most proper formal expression of metadata, which can be expressed
via natural language, and thus has better readability. This makes it the basic specification of semantic encoding,
and its implementation can be any formal language, such as RDF/XML or N3, or JSON-LD, etc.It could be
regarded that the triples are the smallest structural unit of human cognition, are bricks and tiles of the knowledge
skyscraper and the elementary particles of the entire knowledge universe. Formal representations of metadata
enables machine-understanding and strong computability, providing possibilities in a range of metadata
services, such as registry, query, mapping, discovery, extension, navigation and so on. Además, it provides
ways for computers to break through the limitation of only presenting information, and to manage and work
on semantics directly. It is not only designed for human understanding, but also for interoperability between
máquinas, which can be further applied to the Internet of Things (IoT), sensor networks and semantic interaction
between servers. Till this point, a set of metadata methods aimed at providing semantic architecture and content
architecture for information systems got established.
The metadata methodological commons can be seen as a process of modeling the whole domain
knowledge system through human analysis. The knowledge ontology itself is a conceptual model of domain
conocimiento, so the construction of the knowledge ontology (shorten as ontology) is also an important part
in the metadata methodological commons. Ontology should be built based on concepts, rather than words,
which is similar to the concept-based knowledge system in traditional information retrieval research.
Ontology is a normalized description of the domain concepts and the relationship between them, cual
need to be standardized and explicit as much as possible to support machines processing, and support
sharing and reuse. ‘Explicit’ here means that the types of concepts employed and the constraints to which
they apply are clearly defined. The metadata model from DCMI recommends the use of URIs to annotate
entity objects such as resources, terms, etc., which in fact can be seen as a kind of ‘conceptualization’. A
be noted, generally, metadata application does not emphasize this point, and take the current knowledge
graph applications as an example, many of them use words as points. Although it is hard to establish a
strict concept-based knowledge system, through certain software, the entities could be extracted
automatically to build relationships at a lower cost.
Ontology is able to provide an overall description of the underlying resources’ metadata. Generally,
according to design requirements, the domain knowledge system or resource base or knowledge base at a
Data Intelligence
293
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
mi
d
tu
d
norte
/
i
t
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
/
/
/
5
1
2
8
9
2
0
7
4
4
0
8
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
9
pag
d
.
t
/
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Metadata as a Methodological Commons: From Aboutness Description to Cognitive Modeling
macro level is described, and it contains various upper-level entities and interrelationships, which can be
treated as a combination of related ontology. The complex part of ontology modelling is the vocabulary
design and relationships as it adopts different modeling language such as OWL, etc.; apart from this aspect,
in essence, ontology modelling is similar to metadata encoding. OWL itself can be seen as an extension
of RDFS, so this makes it available to adopt the same application schema of metadata to integrate different
coding patterns, which will not be covered in this paper. It can be referred that metadata schema and formal
ontology together constitute the domain knowledge system or the content architecture of the knowledge
base and repository.
In library, the usage of metadata methods has expanded to the relevant aspects of information system
application, including the description scheme of resource content, management, technology and other
procesos. The most important function of it is to provide a structure and index based on ‘content’ for digital
document which is the main body of digital collections, by which it breaks through the traditional way of
describing document unit as an object, but goes deep into the content. It not only describes and manages
the theme, persona, transactions, events, etc.. in a direct way, but also is capable of further supporting the
construction of content models [8]. It is put into practice in digital humanities (DH) platforms and even in
the application of digital twins and metaverse to better support digital transformation in areas such as
scientific research, education, and publishing (en otras palabras, to support the transition to the fourth paradigm
of scientific research).
2.2 The Challenges Brought by Big Data
Over long periods of time, all the knowledge organization and expression have been built on the
understanding of human cognition process. Metadata structures information, the link among data forms a
meaningful network, and the description and acquisition of the linked relationships benefit from metadata.
The larger the network, the more necessary it is to have a mechanism to derive knowledge from data and
store and utilize it to distill so-called “artificial intelligence” (AI). The use of semantic technology to encode
conocimiento (which is the encoding of the objective content of knowledge – ‘semantics’) so that computers
shall ‘understand’ knowledge, process it, and achieve the acquisition, transmission and processing of
knowledge in a distributed environment. Actualmente, the metadata method has technically provided a way
for cognitive computing, which is knowledge representation and description. This at least provides a
solución, eso es, through structuring information, along with domain knowledge and the use of ontology
diseño, knowledge in certain domain gets conceptualized and understood semantically, leading to the
construction of domain knowledge model and supporting content-based knowledge association for
información. In this way, the massive storage and high-speed computing ability of computer systems can
be fully made use of, and application systems of domain knowledge base in various fields can be further
desarrollado.
There are two important assumptions behind the above solution: firstly, there should be enough resources
to complete the semantic work of the growing massive information in a timely manner; secondly, all the
knowledge could be coded, formalized, and modeled through formal knowledge representation tools, entonces
294
Data Intelligence
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
mi
d
tu
d
norte
/
i
t
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
/
/
/
5
1
2
8
9
2
0
7
4
4
0
8
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
9
pag
d
.
/
t
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Metadata as a Methodological Commons: From Aboutness Description to Cognitive Modeling
to be recognized and calculated by computers. Obviamente, these two assumptions do not always hold: el
information explosion has brought about the geometric growth in data, and it is now generally accepted
that manual annotation and organization of information is an impossible task; what is more, not all the
knowledge can be coded or expressed symbolically.
Datos, computing power and algorithms are the three key elements of AI. Actualmente, aprendizaje automático
is heavily dependent on big data and available training data. Due to the lack of enough or quality training
data for machine learning models, fully automated metadata generation models have only achieved limited
success in the field of digital libraries. Many practitioners daunted when applying semantic technologies
because of the complexity of ontology, the ambiguity of semantic encoding, the inconsistency in technical
implementation and the difficulty of process automation, which usually requires a lot of manual processing
during the construction process. Although the recent introduction of big data management technology,
especially the graph database technology, is expected to alleviate the problems of efficiency, scale and
scalability to a certain extent, the fundamental problems have still not been solved, and it is urgent for
researchers to find an engineering method that can be rapidly promoted to big data sets.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
mi
d
tu
d
norte
/
i
t
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
/
/
/
5
1
2
8
9
2
0
7
4
4
0
8
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
9
pag
d
t
/
.
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
2.3 Metadata Methodological Commons and Machine Intelligence
Metadata as methodological commons can be incorporated with machine learning in two ways: certain
level of automation of metadata methods can be achieved by machine learning technology, and meanwhile,
the knowledge system with labelled metadata can also be data source for machine intelligence.
On the one hand, the acquisition and modeling of metadata can be supported by machine learning;
even if it is not yet possible to meet the needs of fully automated processing, it can alleviate the efficiency
and cost problems to a great deal. Before the advent of general artificial intelligence (AGI), it is hard to
achieve full-scale machine cognition and semantic understanding, and the semantic description of contents
generally requires manual work; sin embargo, increasing tasks can be completed by computer vision, natural
language processing (NLP) and other technologies that are well developed. Por ejemplo, breakthroughs
have been achieved in character and entity recognition, relationship extraction, automatic annotation, texto
translation and conversion, and there is also discussion about the possibility of automatic generation of
metadata on large-scale content [2]. Concept of ‘smart data’ with self-describing, computable and actionable
characteristics was proposed. Triple set that represented by RDF and contains certain causes and effects,
sequence or expression axioms is regarded as the simplest form of smart data. With the help of various
metadata specification vocabularies and ontological patterns for automatic verification, its management
can also be automatically processed, auto-generate semantic data and even construct knowledge graphs.
Por otro lado, the description of domain knowledge by metadata can be seen as semantic labels,
which can be applied to neural networks and other machine learning algorithms to train model [13], por
which the limitation caused by small data set could be overcame, and a more precise learning model or
classifier could be created, bringing about more machine learning applications [8]. Actualmente, digital
libraries and many knowledge systems (such as Wikipedia) can be viewed as knowledge buildings
Data Intelligence
295
Metadata as a Methodological Commons: From Aboutness Description to Cognitive Modeling
constructed by metadata methods; whether they provide human intelligence directly through digital libraries
or provide rich knowledge repositories as training or testing data for machine learning, they are of great
valor. Some technical experts classify semantic web represented AI research classified into the ‘symbolicism’,
believing that symbolicism should work closely with ‘connectionism’ which is represented by deep neural
redes, as it has made breakthrough but now began to stagnate. This kind of collaboration has in fact
begun, and a large number of studies have effectively demonstrated that metadata has a direct impact on
the effect of using deep neural networks or other machine learning methods [8, 9, 10]. Actualmente, symbolic
neural networks/systems(cid:101) that make machines smarter have become an active field of research, Por ejemplo,
Graph Neural Networks (GNN), Markov Logic Networks (MLN), Knowledge Graph (KG) and Deep Neural
Networks (DNN) combined research, are different machine learning tribes trying to collaborate with each
otro, where metadata can be found all around. This should be a way to break through the bottleneck of
machine learning at present.
Intelligence is expected to empower metadata management in the era of AI, by which knowledge creation
could be supported by intelligent systems. Worthy of noting, the premise of making machines smart is the
manpower: ontology and its specification should be first compiled and generated, and reference rules needs
to be encoded. Almost all the traditional methods plus computational thinking require the use of data
modeling and resource description, therefore the metadata method is universal. Sin embargo, machine
aprendiendo, especially neural networks, can only achieve a small scale success in certain areas before it has
evolved to general AI [7]. Actualmente, traditional method is still the primary approach, and metadata even
serves as a premise for machine learning. Definitely, we hope that eventually the machine learning approach
will succeed, and can take over the role of metadata methods completely, instead of only reinforcing it.
3. METADATA AND METAVERSE
3.1 Metaverse and Web 3.0
The metaverse is a universe of data and technology, just like the Pyramids and the Great Wall, all of
which are the products of large-scale collaboration between human being and the latest technology. Es
more suitable to say that the Internet is the preceding form of metaverse, rather than saying that the
metaverse is the next generation of the Internet. Most of the key characteristics for building metaverse have
in fact existed with the development of web 2.0: including a large amount of annotated systems constituting
a large-scale space with entities and objects, various types of relationship descriptions linking entities of
the entire network, and some extent of interoperability being achieved, supporting the real-time and
continuous activities for global users.
Compare with the previous two generations of Internet technologies: Web 1.0 is the content network, en
which users consume information; Web 2.0 is the social network, in which users create information; mientras
Web 3.0 is the value network, in which users can possess information assets. From the perspective of
(cid:101) See more at https://www.jiqizhixin.com/articles/101402
296
Data Intelligence
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
mi
d
tu
d
norte
/
i
t
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
/
/
/
5
1
2
8
9
2
0
7
4
4
0
8
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
9
pag
d
/
t
.
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Metadata as a Methodological Commons: From Aboutness Description to Cognitive Modeling
metadata, it originated in Web 1.0, succeeded in Web 2.0, and will continue to achieve great value in the
Web 3.0. In the Web 1.0 era, metadata has played a role in content disclosure and discovery, where digital
libraries rely on metadata, and the rise of search engines such as Google has also used metadata to obtain
a considerable commercial scale. In Web 2.0, UGC is on the rise, and through the adoption of the mobile
Internet, there emerged many giant company that provide centralized services. En este momento, wikis, blogs,
podcasts, microblogs, e-commerce, etc.. are blooming, and universal relationship descriptions (e.g social
networks are relationship computing) have become a necessity, and Really Simple Syndication (RSS) es un
typical representative of them. In the Web 3.0 era, it is expected to achieve the real decentralization, dónde
the underlying architecture should be built on blockchain technology, and so any activity and information
generated during that can leave traces, which shall bring about decentralized trust (or de-trusting). Through
the decentralized identity (DID) which is supported by personal digital wallet, anyone can live a life in
metaverse. Al mismo tiempo, it is also compatible with the centralized model that formed in Web 1.0 y
2.0 era. All the activity in the virtual world is in essence the activity of information, and there is almost no
friction; por lo tanto, the relations of production that shaped in the real world would often requires a high
cost to manage and operate the digital world. Por ejemplo, the cost of maintaining the copyright of e-books
is much higher than the cost of letting it circulate freely, making its original business model unsustainable,
resulting in new models such as traffic patterns and advertising models. Property rights protection in the
Web 3.0 era occurs simultaneously with information production, which is an innate attribute of the platform.
Certainly, this does not mean that people who own the rights should oppose to open movement, sobre el
contrary, this shall make it more effective in promoting ‘open, sharing and free’ activities.
3.2 Metadata in Metaverse/Web 3.0
The metaverse consists of multiple layers of data and interconnected protocols [14]. To put it in a simple
way, there are content metadata, technical metadata, and management metadata (ver figura 1) [6]. Contenido
metadata is generally the same as that in Web 2.0 era, but it is more complex in Web 3.0 era in the way
that there emerges many new data types and formats, which support the new interaction ways such as 3D
rendering and spatial computing. Por ejemplo, there are many interesting properties designed in NFT
técnica, and the value of it is closely related to combination of those different properties. The modelling
of metaverse also relates to ontology construction and attribute description, etc., all of which involves a
large number of metadata models. Technical metadata mainly includes system architecture, response mode,
interaction specification, service registration and discovery, and specific design of the protocol. Management
metadata refers to the life cycle management of all independent digital objects, which is used to ensure
that users establish a trust mechanism in each scenario and case, as well as various constraints and settings
for the smooth operation of the trust mechanism. Generally speaking, the rules for the operation of metaverse
(es decir., DAO) and smart contracts belong to the management metadata.
The metadata in Web 1.0 usually describes offline entities; metadata in Web 2.0 is able to obtain online
object files through metadata in a direct way; and metadata in Web3.0 and the objects it describes are all
essentially data, which is often difficult to distinguish as they describe each other.
Data Intelligence
297
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
mi
d
tu
d
norte
/
i
t
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
/
/
/
5
1
2
8
9
2
0
7
4
4
0
8
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
9
pag
d
.
t
/
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Metadata as a Methodological Commons: From Aboutness Description to Cognitive Modeling
Cifra 1. Metadata methodological commons in the metaverse/web 3.0 ambiente.
Almost all schema innovations in Web 3.0 require metadata. A typical example is the RDF Site Summary
or Really Simple Syndication (RSS) which is originated in Web 2.0 era, a content distribution and aggregation
standard. In Web 3.0 era, it promoted into a distributed version: RSS3.
As is shown in Figure 2(cid:102), in the traditional RSS2 model, the content created by users is based on a
centralized platform, and the platform is then recommended to users through channels or algorithms; en
RSS3, the creators themselves control the content, decentralized application (Dapp) pulls user content, y
other users subscribe to the creator’s content. RSS3 not only automatically aggregates information through
metadata, but also guarantees that each content creation can be tracked and continue to receive revenue
(if the author has set the corresponding ownership; certainly, many authors share content for free using the
Creative Commons License or Creative Commons).
The design of RSS3 is to some extent troublesome, yet very clever. It is proposed by Natural Selection
Labs, and it implemented three application components: ‘RE:ID’, ‘Web2Pass’, and ‘Revery’(cid:103). Respectively,
they are implemented to solve problems of user’s unique identity (which is bundled with digital wallets,
but can obtain an RNS global domain name), personalized home page, and local content asset aggregation
and subscription problems, which is suitable for decentralized environments. Compared with traditional
RSS, the biggest feature of RSS3 is that once the content is created, it is stored permanently, the author
confirms the rights of contents, and the distribution and aggregation are completely controlled by the
creator, instead of handing over to the platform. Actualmente, the application of RSS3 is built on the Solana
public chain, the cost for content creation is very low, and it also supports low-cost Arweave storage, de este modo
has a very promising application prospect.
(cid:102) Figure source: https://blog.rss3.io/platformless-media
(cid:103) https://blog.rss3.io/
298
Data Intelligence
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
mi
d
tu
d
norte
/
i
t
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
/
/
/
5
1
2
8
9
2
0
7
4
4
0
8
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
9
pag
d
.
/
t
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Metadata as a Methodological Commons: From Aboutness Description to Cognitive Modeling
Cifra 2. Comparison between RSS2 and RSS3.
The value of metadata got highlighted in the digital age as the need to explicitly describe attributes and
provide rules for semantic interoperability of the information body in the distributed information environment,
which enriched the function of metadata. Entering to the era of metaverse, the decentralized data architecture
of Web 3.0, IoT, edge computing, the ubiquitous machine learning, intelligent services and the interaction
of information entities enables the full operation of metadata. The entire building of the metaverse is built
on the basis of service discovery and resource discovery, and there shall design a set of description,
registration, publicación, discovery, and interoperability mechanisms to assist this basis, which relies on the
function of metadata.
4. CONCLUSIÓN
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
mi
d
tu
d
norte
/
i
t
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
/
/
/
5
1
2
8
9
2
0
7
4
4
0
8
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
9
pag
d
t
/
.
i
Based on the review of metadata methodological commons, this paper discusses the development of
metadata from structural description to semantic coding in the big data environment. It systematically
analyzes how metadata is incorporated with machine learning to empower knowledge system construction
and knowledge creation with intelligence. As a systematic description specification for knowledge systems,
metadata will continue to play an important role in the construction of the Web 3.0 distributed information
environment and in the multi-modal metaverse. It is also predictable that this important role will also work
further in Web 4.0 (the symbiotic web where human and machines connect and communicate in a symbiotic
way) and even Web 5.0, where all forms of data shall be fully grasped by users with the support of sensory
sistemas. Of course just as Web 3.0 did not become a purely semantic Web, it is very hard to make a
definitive judgment as to whether Web 4.0 y 5.0 will develop in the direction that people predict. Pero
in any case, the role of metadata may be increasingly hidden behind the scenes, but it will also be
increasingly fundamental and therefore increasingly important.
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Data Intelligence
299
Metadata as a Methodological Commons: From Aboutness Description to Cognitive Modeling
Compared with the large amount of unstructured and semi-structured data in Web 2.0 applications that
lack detailed description, which leads to the deficiency of value in data applications, the meaningful fine-
grained and ubiquitous linked data and semantic descriptions in Web 3.0 environment makes it an all-
inclusive and all-powerful neural network. The value of metadata is fundamental in this context. During
this process, metadata needs to be combined with machine learning algorithms to develop a set of
methodologies that automatically implement semantic formalization, which is the inevitable way for it to
adapt to the needs of the future intelligent era.
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
Wei Liu (w.liu@libnet.sh.cn, 0000-0003-2663-7539) contributed to the conception and design of the
trabajar, drafting the manuscript, and critical revision of the article. Yaming Fu (ymfu@libnet.sh.cn, 0000-
0001-9736-4916) contributed to the writing and revision of the manuscript. Qianqian Liu (qqliu@libnet.
sh.cn, 0000-0002-8111-5154) contributed to the writing and revision of the manuscript.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
mi
d
tu
d
norte
/
i
t
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
/
/
/
5
1
2
8
9
2
0
7
4
4
0
8
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
9
pag
d
.
/
t
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is supported by the National Social Science Foundation (Grant/Award Number: 21&ZD334)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing
of this article.
REFERENCIAS
[ 1] Garlinghouse, T.: The rise and fall of the Great Library of Alexandria. Livescience (2022). Disponible en: https://
www.livescience.com/rise-and-fall-of-the-great-alexandria-library. Accedido 2 December 2022
[2] Han, h., Giles, C.L., Manavoglu, MI., et al.: Automatic document metadata extraction using support vector
[3]
[4]
máquinas. En: Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, páginas. 37–48 (2003)
Schelter, S., Boese, J.H., Kirschnick, J., et al.: Automatically tracking metadata and provenance of machine
learning experiments. En: Machine Learning Systems Workshop at NIPS, páginas. 27–29 (2017)
Leipzig, J., Nüst, D, Hoyt, C.T., et al.: The role of metadata in reproducible computational research. Patrones
2(9), 100322 (2021)
[5] Ulrich, h., Kock-Schoppenhauer, A.K., Deppenwiese, NORTE., et al.: Understanding the Nature of Metadata:
Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research 24(1), e25440 (2022)
[6] Gong, C.: White Paper of China metaverse development (2022). Available at: https://www.healthit.cn/
wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2022中国元宇宙白皮书-龚才春.pdf. Accedido 2 December 2022
[7] marco, GRAMO.: The next decade in AI: Four Steps Towards Robust Artificial Intelligence (2022). Disponible en:
https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/2002/2002.06177v2.pdf. Accedido 2 December 2022
300
Data Intelligence
Metadata as a Methodological Commons: From Aboutness Description to Cognitive Modeling
[8] Greenberg, J.: Big metadata, smart metadata, and metadata capital: toward greater synergy between data
[9]
science and metadata. Journal of Data and Information Science 2(3), 19–36 (2017)
Leipzig, J., Bakis, y., Wang, X., et al.: Biodiversity image quality metadata augments Convolutional neural
network classification of fish species. En: Research Conference on Metadata and Semantics Research,
páginas. 3–12. Saltador, cham (2020)
[10] Greenberg, J., zhao, X., Monselise, METRO., et al.: Knowledge Organization Systems: A Network for AI with
Helping Interdisciplinary Vocabulary Engineering. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 59(8), 720–739
(2021)
[11] Liu, w., Lou, X., zhao, l.: The History, Present and Future of Dublin Core Metadata (2005). Disponible en:
http://eprints.rclis.org/6077/. Accedido 2 December 2022
[12] Duval, MI., Hodgins, w., suton, S., et al.: Metadata principles and practicalities. D-lib Magazine 8(4), 1–10
(2002)
[13] Ostendorff, METRO., Bourgonje, PAG., Berger, METRO., et al.: Enriching bert with knowledge graph embeddings for
clasificación de documentos. arXiv preimpresión arXiv:1909.08402 (2019)
[14] Radoff, J.: The Seven Layers of the Metaverse (2021). Building the Metaverse. Disponible en: https://medio.
com/building-the-metaverse/weekly-kickoff-april-5-2021-ea39a4e22e3. Accedido 2 December 2022
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
mi
d
tu
d
norte
/
i
t
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
/
/
/
5
1
2
8
9
2
0
7
4
4
0
8
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
9
pag
d
.
t
/
i
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Data Intelligence
301
Metadata as a Methodological Commons: From Aboutness Description to Cognitive Modeling
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Wei Liu (1966-), masculino, Doctor. Deputy Director of Shanghai Library (Instituto
of Scientific and Technical Information of Shanghai), adjunct professor of
Fudan University, East China Normal University and Shanghai University.
Research direction: knowledge organization, digital library management,
digital humanities. Correo electrónico: w.liu@libnet.sh.cn.
ORCID: 0000-0003-2663-7539
Yaming Fu (1993-), femenino, Doctor. graduated from the University College
Londres (UCL), postdoctoral researcher at Shanghai Library (Institute of
Scientific and Technical Information of Shanghai) and the School of
Information Management at Nanjing University. Research direction: digital
library management, digital humanities. Correo electrónico: ymfu@libnet.sh.cn.
ORCID: 0000-0001-9736-4916
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
mi
d
tu
d
norte
/
i
t
/
yo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
F
/
/
/
/
5
1
2
8
9
2
0
7
4
4
0
8
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
9
pag
d
t
.
/
i
Qianqian Liu (1985-), femenino, data librarian of Shanghai Library (Institute of
Scientific and Technical Information of Shanghai). Research direction: digital
humanidades, data processing and platform construction. Correo electrónico:qqliu@libnet.
sh.cn.
ORCID: 0000-0002-8111-5154
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
302
Data Intelligence
