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
