Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
The usual solution to this problem is that when you get to a certain level, the metadata describes itself. So although you can keep going up another level, for some level N you find that metadata(N) = data(N), so you don't find anything new by going higher. In the data dictionary / IRDS world, four layers were generally considered sufficient. Level 1 contains the objects appearing in the data (Fred), level 2 the objects defined in a user-written schema (Employee), level 3 the objects defined in the data model (Table, Column, Element, Attribute), and level 4 the language for describing data models, which is also capable of describing itself. Michael Kay > -----Original Message----- > From: Ramkumar Menon [mailto:ram.menon@o...] > Sent: 25 May 2004 08:11 > To: xml-dev@l... > Subject: Meta-Meta-Meta.... > > At what level do we put a peiod on the level of abstractions > we have on > information ? We have Metadata, metada-metadata........ > Especially, in the XML World, there is an XML that represents > Information, XSD that is the metadata fo the information, > Ontologies that are the metadata for the semantics of the > information, > and so on..... Where is the Sky ? > Maybe there is a metadata for the kind of relationships that are > possible within an Ontology .... and so on...... > > -Menon > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > 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://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php> > >
|
