Lists Home |
Date Index |
well traditionally meta meant something "bigger or more than". so meta
information is used to add meaning to something else. if the so-called
meta information is included in the subject, then it's not meta
information. that's just the definition.
the paper referenced by len goes back to the mathematical basis of this.
perhaps a simple example would be to consider the relationship of a
group to a real number. groups are meta information about numbers. they
describe a "complete" system of operations on real numbers. but the real
numbers themselves have nothing about them (when viewed as numbers) that
says anything about the group. ie the number 1.25 says nothing about the
significance of 1.25 * 2.5. that's the meta information provided by
so from a data perspective (and perhaps from a document perspective too)
i think there is a lot to be gained by differentiating data from a view
of the data.
but that can take us back to the data/document divide ;)
Didier PH Martin wrote:
>>you may want to disagree... but, by definition meta data cannot be
>>determined by the content of the data.
>>you see the <meta/> tag and it's associates are actually part of the
>>data set. so although they are something, strictly speaking they are not
>>i think this is a very important distinction.
>You probably meant "may" not be determined by the content of the data. If
>not, can you expand a bit on this.
>Didier PH Martin
>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
tel;cell:+61 411 287 530