[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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@oracle.com]
> Sent: 25 May 2004 08:11
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: [xml-dev] 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>
>
>
|
