Re: [office-metadata] Legal metadata

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Gary,

No, I think we should continue to just say "metadata."

If we accept the notion that metadata is data about data, what else is 
revision history if it is not data about data (the data added or removed 
from a document)?

Envelopes don't come with a warning to ransom note writers to not lick 
the envelopes (DNA evidence). Nor do deposit slips in your checkbook 
carry a warning: "Do not use for robbery notes to bank tellers." But 
both cases happen often enough.

On the other hand, I do think we need to make the case for how metadata 
helps with work flow and other issues. Work flow means $$$ in a law 
office (other offices as well, but we are talking about a legal example) 
and part of that work flow may be a final scrubbing of the document 
before it leaves the office. If the benefits are there, no amount of 
risk is going to slow this train down.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

Gary Edwards wrote:

> Hi Patrick,
>
> It sounds like they've fallen prey to the infamous MS Word revision 
> list.  I've never considered information about the revision process to 
> be "metadata", but clearly the press tagged it as such.  What is 
> information about the revision process called anyway?  If we continue 
> to call let the media call it "metadata", the confusion will damage 
> our work.  Sadly, misunderstandings like this could serve to push the 
> semantic web out another few years - unless we find a way of putting 
> things in proper context.
>
> Do we cut our losses and try to separate it out and call it "process 
> metadata"?  Or "revision metadata"? 
>
> Maybe we should ask ODF applications to consider that revision 
> information should be automagically encrypted with a PGP key as the 
> default behavior, with an unlocked revision info process set only as a 
> optional configuration that comes with a warning?  A security advisory 
> to those who implement ODF? 
>
> I say separate in the sense that this would "by default" provide users 
> with an open, exchangeable, highly collaborative document, with the 
> revision information defaulting into a high security mode.  Maybe 
> there is even a market value for revision information being set in a 
> separate container?  With the option of archiving it separately (or 
> deleting it entirely) after the collaboration or single document work 
> process is complete.
>
> I've become addicted to the gWritely wiki revision management 
> process.  But no way would i want that record available to anyone 
> beyond the invited collaborators.  Once the document is finished and 
> ready for digital distribution, that revision list has to be archived 
> separately.  And i have pulled up old documents for the sole purposes 
> of reviewing revisions.
>
> Maybe the problem is simply that the Florida bar is confusing the many 
> dangerously insecure features of Microsoft Office applications and 
> file formats with the otherwise secure practices implemented by ODF 
> application providers?  And all we need do is point this out?  The 
> suggestion here being based on the hopeful assumption that the OASIS 
> ODF Metadata SC will be recognized as having a more informed opinion 
> than the many bloggers and commentators who struggle mightily to point 
> out that this is a MS Office failure and not something inherent to 
> "metadata" work.  So far we would have to say that the MS shills have 
> carried the day.  They have successfully spun the careless negligence 
> of Microsoft application developers into a discussion about the 
> dangers of metadata.
>
> Either way, the confusion has to be addressed.  This isn't a "metadata 
> problem".  It's a Microsoft Office problem.
>
> And perhaps this might be an issue we can use to engage "John McClure" 
> < jmcclure@hypergrove.com <mailto:jmcclure@hypergrove.com>> 
> (LegalRDF), and the LegalXML community?  How do they feel about this 
> damaging metadata association with the confusion concerning the 
> serious negligence of MS Office applications?
>
> ~ge~
>
> On 5/6/06, *Patrick Durusau* <patrick@durusau.net 
> <mailto:patrick@durusau.net>> wrote:
>
>     Friends,
>
>     While looking for more information on legal metadata use cases I ran
>     across the following. It is "on topic" but strictly for your
>     amusement.
>     And yes, I did check the source and the article appears to be an
>     official Florida Bar News article from *January, 2006.*
>
>     *****
>
>     *FLORIDA BAR BAFFLED AND UPSET BY METADATA* . . . According to the
>     /Florida Bar News/
>     <
>     http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/jnnews01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829/c3f75b4e10e94f78852570e50051b23e?OpenDocument>,
>     the Florida Bar's Board of Governors wants to ban the practice of
>     looking at metadata in electronic documents. Said one board
>     member, "I
>     have no doubt that anyone who receives a document and mines it . .
>     . is
>     unethical, unprofessional, and un-everything else."
>
>     At its latest meeting, the board voted unanimously for a motion
>     stating
>     that lawyers should not look at metadata. The board also referred the
>     following two questions to the Professional Ethics Committee of the
>     Florida Bar:
>
>         The first is whether it is unethical for a lawyer to mine metadata
>         from an electronic document he or she receives from another
>     party.
>         The second is whether an attorney has an affirmative duty to take
>         reasonable precautions to ensure that sensitive metadata is
>     removed
>         from an electronic document before it is transmitted.
>
>     According to the article, several of the Florida board members hadn't
>     heard the word "metadata" until the meeting in which they swiftly
>     voted
>     to take action against it. For more background on lawyers and
>     metadata,
>     see my recent posts at the /Illinois Trial Practice Weblog/,
>     "Electronic
>     Discovery: 'Metadata' Becomes a Sexy Word
>     <http://www.illinoistrialpractice.com/2005/11/electronic_disc.html>,"
>     and "Avoid Embarrassment: Learn About the Metadata You're Creating
>     <http://www.illinoistrialpractice.com/2005/12/avoid_embarrass.html>."
>
>     Thanks to a reader for the link.
>     *****
>     From: http://www.legalunderground.com/2006/01/florida_bar_baf.html
>
>     Hope everyone is having a great day!
>
>     Patrick
>
>     --
>     Patrick Durusau
>     Patrick@Durusau.net <mailto:Patrick@Durusau.net>
>     Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
>     Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
>     Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005
>
>     Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Gary Edwards
> The OpenDocument Foundation, Inc.
> Redwood City, CA USA 94063
> (650) 365-0899
> (650) 888-2268 c.
> gary.edwards@OpenDocument.us <mailto:gary.edwards@OpenDocument.us>
> http://OpendocumentFoundation.us
>
> Founding member of the OASIS OpenDocument TC, representing the 
> OpenOffice.org Community
>
> Founding member of  the OpenDocument Foundation, Inc. - a USA 501c(3) 
> non profit chartered in the public interest to support, develop and 
> promote the OASIS OpenDocument XML file format. 


-- 
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@Durusau.net
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!