Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
IMO, because field-names (column names) in a relational database are referred to as meta-data along with the rest of the database schema, XML element names, and the schema/DTD are likewise meta-data relative to the data in the element. Clearly, "meta" is a recursive concept. As they said on Broadway, "Anything you can do I can do meta!"....:) -Allen Razdow -----Original Message----- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 2:00 PM To: 'Chris Wilper'; Gustaf Liljegren; xml-dev@l... The question is as Chris shows, in the view set by the relationship. In <reporter>John Smith</reporter> it is a fair assumption that John Smith IS-A reporter; therefore, the data in the tag (the element name) is about the content. Some will agree that is metadata (data about data). However given <li number="1.">John Smith</li> <li number="3.">Georgiana Geyer</li> some will agree that the data in the tag is not about the content, or if so, has to be gotten from documentation. The role depends on the relationship provided or enforced by the processor. In other words, perhaps that is bad HTML. AN HTML processor ignores the attribute and enforces the rendering relationship (IS-A member of a list). On the other hand, in a different processor would imply that the relationship has a different meaning. Given a context and different proceessor <rankOfImportance> <li number="1.">John Smith</li> <li number="3.">Georgiana Geyer</li> </rankOfImportance> could mean something different and the outer context setting tag (rankOfImportance) is redundant. That would be context as you say, but it is the processor, automated or human, that understands and enforces the relationship. XML is deliberately agnostic about such issues. That is why I say, "XML Doesn't Know; so XML Doesn't Care. You do." len From: Chris Wilper [mailto:cwilper@c...] I usually avoid the distinction unless forced otherwise by a tool or framework, because it often limits people's imagined use of information. XML itself says nothing about this, which is good IMO. What you describe in your second scenario looks a bit like RDF-XML... where the structure of the data has about-ness implications. - Chris From: Gustaf Liljegren [mailto:gustaf.liljegren@b...] I've heard some people say that the markup is by itself metadata, that an element's name is metadata, because it describes the element's content: <reporter> <-- This is metadata John Smith <-- This is data </reporter> Isn't this wrong? Comparing to what I learned from Dublin Core, metadata is data too. It's not just the name of a property. I'd say it's the element's context that decides whether <reporter> is a data or a metadata element. <reporter> <-- This is just the name of a property John Smith <-- This may be metadata, depending on the element's context </reporter> Is this the right way to think about metadata in XML? ----------------------------------------------------------------- The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
