Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Michael Champion" <email@example.com>,"XML Developers List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:25:47 -0700
- Thread-index: AcRNyEbxI343Kq/JSU6T5xnd7u6sOAAABwog
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Champion [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:19 PM
> To: XML Developers List
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Meta-somethingorother (was the
> semantic web mega-permathread thing)
> 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!
Metadata, like semantics, is in the eye of the beholder. One person's
data is another's metadata.
I can extract some explicit metadata such as who posted an entry, when
it was posted, the category the author thought it belonged in and what
is its title from the feed. This is information that I'd expect to see
in the <META> element of the HTML page for that feed which Cory Doctorow
claims is Metacrap.
From where I stand, RSS feeds are a counter example to the arguments in
the Metacrap essay.
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
If two wrongs don't make a right, try three.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no