What do you think to the following organization of metadata about a methodology?   If you have specific addition thoughts, respond to the poll and then email me.

  • Metadata - this is metadata about this record not the methodology itself, version, publisher, date, etc...
  • Description* - general information
  • SamplePrep* - important info not overly detailed
  • Analyte(s)* - identifiers and info about speciation, phase/fraction, state
  • Matrice(s)* - normally only one, what it is, where it came from, location if appropriate
  • Technique(s)* - normally only one, instrumental/wet chemical, major characteristics (changed from Instrumental)
  • Calibration - new category with example data, calibration standards, calibration curve equation, calibration type
  • Metrics* - most of the important information goes here
  • Validation* - information about how the method was validated, SRMs, spiked samples, QC data etc
  • Bibliography - references to procedures/papers

Metadata Structure

This is great - no changes needed - 42.9%
This is fine but needs more categories - 42.9%
This is fine but needs less categories - 0%
This is OK but needs a major rework - 14.3%
There is no need to have categories - 0%
You don't have any clue about what you are doing - 0%

Total votes: 7
The voting for this poll has ended on: November 11, 2014