- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 15:50:23 -0800
- To: uri@bunyip.com
- Cc: davenport@ora.com
Just a minor nit (or two)...
>> >So, a URC comes together with a bibliographic database because they both
>> >hold meta-data.
>>
>> More mumbo jumbo. Someone please give a precise defintion of
>> meta-data. I understand terms like "relational database," "inverted
>> index," "SQL," "precision," "recall." The term meta-data doesn't mean
>> anything in particular to me.
>
> Meta-Data is that data bound to a given object that is not included
> within that objects physical internal representation.
Not quite. Metainformation (a term I prefer over Meta-data) is information
about some other aggregate of information. Whether or not it is included
within that information's physical internal representation is irrelevant.
> Example, the dollar cost of a database query, the Author of a given
> document, the title in a non HTML file, etc....
...the title of an HTML document, the size of that document, the set of URLs
that can be used to access that document, the set of URNs for which that
document is a valid representation, the characteristics of that
representation, etc.
BTW, can we clarify what we mean by URC? It made sense to talk about
citations, and it also makes sense to talk about individual characteristics,
but the use of URC to represent a set of characteristics is just too
confusing. Any chance that we can go back to calling the "set" a URM
and an individual characteristic a URC?
......Roy Fielding ICS Grad Student, University of California, Irvine USA
<fielding@ics.uci.edu>
<URL:http://www.ics.uci.edu/dir/grad/Software/fielding>
Received on Monday, 23 January 1995 19:41:48 UTC