• To: 'Michael Champion' <mc@x...>,'XML Developers List' <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic webmega-permathread thing)
• From: Didier PH Martin <martind@n...>
• Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:22:41 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <5FF67610-B9BB-11D8-B347-000A95CCC59E@x...>
• Organization: netfolder
• Reply-to: martind@n...

Hi Michael,

> So "metadata" is "content" transformed into a more conveniently
> machine-processable form?  OK, that does explain a lot of points that I
> wasn't understanding in your, or Dare's or Joshua's arguments.  It's
> not what I thought of as metadata, or what Doctorow is flaming.  I
> guess we need a meta-model of metadata to keep this all straight!
> 

Yes it seems that some people are looking at the RDF framework as a way to
encode records or frames (i.e. data) and others see it as a way to encode
meta-data about data. The problem is that we do not always know the
reference context. So maybe we should develop the reflex to ask:

Are you talking about RDF as a way to encode a set of properties or as a way
to publish meta-data about some data?

Note to anybody who is willing to help the community: polish the sentence
(my English is poor sometimes when I type faster than my editing brain :-)
and publish it. We will copy and paste it in future messages about the
semantic web

Cheers
Didier PH Martin

• References:
  • Re: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
    • From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic webmega-permathread thing)
• Next by Date: RE: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic webmega-permathread thing)
• Previous by thread: Re: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathreadthing)
• Next by thread: RE: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic webmega-permathread thing)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread