W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 1997

Mixed model metadata proposal

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@rome.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 17:21:20 -0700
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <9704291721.aa28286@paris.ics.uci.edu>

This message contains the text of a proposal for metadata creation,
deletion, and searching.  This proposal represents the consensus view
developed by the Design Team at their meeting in Irvine, CA, April
1-4, 1997.

The proposal is available online at:

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~ejw/authoring/proposals/metadata.html

It is my hope that this proposal will generate discussion on the mailing
list, which will be incorporated into this draft, and then into a new
version of the protocol specification document.  While proposals in this
draft were developed by the Design Team, the participants on the mailing
list are the final arbiters of whether consensus exists on a particular
feature set.

- Jim

----------------

A Proposal for Web Metadata Operations

Draft v0.1, April 29, 1997

Abstract

This document provides rationale for why metadata support for Web resources
is desirable, gives a model for separating existing metadata into small
chunk and large chunk metadata, lists requirements for how to manipulate Web
metadata, and provides a proposal which meets these requirements for how
metadata can be created, deleted, and queried on Web resources using a set
of extensions to the HTTP (version 1.1) protocol.

Introduction

In its most abstract form, metadata is "information about information."
Information on the Web, known as Web resources, have many pieces of
associated descriptive information which is often not explicitly represented
in the resource itself. Examples of metadata include the creator of a
resource, its subject, length, publisher, creation date, etc. Such
descriptive metadata can be used to make information easier to locate by
improving Web searches [Weibel, 1995], rate information to protect children
from indecent content (e.g. the Platform for Internet Content Selection
(PICS) [Miller et al., 1996]), capture copyright information, contain a
digital signature, or store cataloging data. Many other uses are also
possible.

Another type of metadata is the relationship. A relationship captures an
association between two or more resources, and can be one to one, one to
many, or many to many. Relationships can be used to capture navigational
relationships, such as "go to this resource next," or a table of content,
and can also express hierarchies (parent/child, successor/predecessor)
[Maloney, 1996] Relationships have many domain-specific uses, such as a
piece of software which has many "implements" relationships with a
requirements document. Annotations are another use of relationships in which
the relationship points to commentary material on the resource. The use of
relationships to capture associations between data items is an old idea,
stemming from semantic data modeling [Abrial, 1974][Hull & King, 1987], and
early hypertext work on the NLS [Engelbart, 1968] and Xanadu [Nelson, 1981]
systems.

Characteristics of Metadata

To date, there have been many techniques for describing metadata
information. On the Web there have been many mechanisms and proposals for
metadata, including PICS [Miller et al., 1996], PICS-NG, the Rel/Rev draft
[Maloney, 1996], Web Collections, XML linking, several proposals on
representing relationships within HTML, digital signature manifests (DCMF),
and a position paper on Web metadata architecture [Berners-Lee, 1997].
Related to the Web, but coming from a digital library perspective, are the
Dublin Core [Weibel et al., 1995] metadata set and the Warwick Framework
[Lagoze, 1996], a container architecture for different metadata schemas. The
literature on metadata includes many examples of metadata, including MARC
[MARC, 1994], a bibliographic metadata format, RFC 1807 [Lasher, Cohen,
1995], a technical report bibliographic format employed by the Dienst
system, and the proceedings from the first IEEE Metadata conference describe
many community-specific metadata sets.

Participants of the 1996 Metadata II Workshop in Warwick, UK [Lagoze, 1996],
noted that, "new metadata sets will develop as the networked infrastructure
matures" and "different communities will propose, design, and be responsible
for different types of metadata." These observations can be corroborated by
noting that many community-specific sets of metadata already exist, and
there is significant motivation for the development of new forms of metadata
as many communities increasingly make their data available in digital form,
requiring a metadata format to assist data location and cataloging.

Based on an examination of many Web metadata proposals, it appears that Web
metadata can be broadly characterized into two categories, termed small
chunk and large chunk. These are described below.

Small chunk metadata

Small chunk metadata includes data items such as:

   * HTTP headers
   * short attribute-value pairs
   * typed links (e.g. HTTP links, or binary relationships)

While developing a stringent definition of "small" is most likely
impossible, since the definition is arbitrary, and seems to be based on
unstated assumptions about retrieval performance (e.g., retrieval of small
chunk metadata should be "trivially" or "unnoticeably" fast), much metadata
has a small chunk flavor to it.

Characteristics of small chunk metadata include: fast retrieval speeds, no
need for content negotiation, no requirements on ordering, no need for
"trust" information (e.g., digital signature, author information, hash of
contents, date of creation), and relatively simple value information.

Large chunk metadata

Large chunk metadata includes data items such as instances of:

   * PICS, PICS-NG collections
   * Warwick collections
   * MARC records
   * Dublin Core records
   * discipline-specific metadata records
   * Web pages (e.g., an annotation page)

Like the smallness of small chunk metadata, the largeness of large chunk
metadata is similarly difficult to define. Characteristics of large chunk
metadata include: requirements on the ordering of fields, encoded trust
information, pointers to metadata schema descriptions, complex data models,
and multiple levels of containment. Large chunk metadata often contains
several instances of small chunk metadata. Typically large chunk metadata is
larger than small chunk metadata, although it is easy to develop classes of
both for which this assertion does not hold. As a result, there is an
assumption that large chunk metadata takes longer to transmit than small
chunk metadata. Large chunk metadata, when stored as a separate resource,
has the advantage that several different representations of the information
can be stored, such as translations into different natural languages, and
then used in content negotiation.

Mapping of metadata to the Web data model

The mapping of metadata to the various data containers (resources, headers)
in the Web data model varies depending on whether the metadata is stored on,
in, or as a resource.

On resource. In this case, the metadata is stored with the resource, but is
not a part of the resource itself. Examples include HTTP links, HTTP
headers, PICS labels (using the PICS-Label header). On resource storage is
typically used for small chunk metadata, and on resource metadata is
retrievable after 1 network request (a HEAD or GET).

Within resource. The metadata is embedded within the resource, and is a
defined part of the document type description. Examples include HTML REL/REV
links, the HTML META tag, various HTML metadata proposals, Microsoft Word
.DOC documents, and Web Collections. Within resource metadata is retrievable
in 1 network request (GET). Within resource metadata has the advantage of
being independent of access protocol, and is portable (when the resource
moves, it does too). Within resource metadata tends to be small chunk.

Is (whole) resource. The metadata is itself an entire resource. When the
metadata is an entire resource, there usually exists a relationship (link)
between the described and metadata (describing) resources. Examples include
Web Collections, Warwick containers, Web pages. Typically large-chunk
metadata ends up as whole resource metadata, such as the MIME encoding of
Warwick containers described in [Knight, Hamilton, 1996]. Typically
retrieval of whole resource metadata requires 2 network requests (one to get
the links, one to get the metadata).

Consistency maintenance

Many sources have noted that metadata can be viewed as an assertion about
the described data. In this view of metadata, an author attribute is viewed
as an assertion that a particular person is the author of the information
being described. Since the Web is a client-server system, there are two
points of control over these assertions. With client controlled (or user)
metadata, the consistency of the assertion is maintained by the user.
Typically the server is unable to perform any validation of client
controlled (or maintained) metadata. Alternately, the server can control the
consistency of metadata assertions; one example is the last modified date of
a resource.

When metadata can be set by many different principals, as is the case on the
Web, it is desirable to have some way of determining whether a particular
assertion should be trusted. Trust information is a prominent aspect of the
PICS container format, which contains a digital signature, contents hash,
author information, and a valid date range which can be used to assess the
trustworthiness of the assertions contained in the package.

Requirements for Operations on Web Metadata

The following are the relevant requirements for operations on Web metadata
as specified in "Requirements for Distributed Authoring and Versioning"
[Slein et al., 1997].

[5.1.1] It must be possible to create, modify, query, read and delete
arbitrary attributes on resources of any media type.

[5.2.1] It must be possible to create, modify, query, read and delete typed
relationships between resources of any media type.

Proposal for Metadata Operations

In early WebDAV proposals [Goland et. al, 1996] all metadata was whole
resource metadata, with the exception of the links used to hold the
relationship between the described resource and the metadata resource. While
this approach handles large-chunk metadata well, it does have significant
drawbacks for maintaining the referential integrity between metadata and the
resource(s) it describes, especially when they are controlled by different
principals. To ensure that metadata could be created and retrieved in one
method invocation, several convenience functions were proposed which created
a link and the metadata resource in one action. However, this led to
difficulties in specifying the operations due to atomicity problems, and
would be difficult to implement since a partial failure (e.g. link created
OK, but metadata resource creation failed) would require rollback capability
in the server. Another significant drawback to this approach is the
difficulty of providing searches on the value of the metadata. While it was
easy to propose a full-featured search on the type space of the links to the
metadata, searches of the metadata itself quickly led to a consideration of
the full resource searching problem, and difficult issues such as handling
the wide range of natural languages and media types of resources being
searched.

Another early draft, the Netscape proposal [Cunningham & Faizi, 1996], gives
operations for setting and retrieving attribute-value pairs stored in an
attribute sheet associated with the resource. While this approach provides
basic support for small chunk metadata, it lacks an attribute search
mechanism, placing the burden of attribute searching on the client. It also
has no support for large chunk metadata, although this could be provided in
a limited way by storing a URI pointer to large chunk metadata in the value
of an attribute.

Neither a pure whole resource metadata approach, nor a pure on-resource
approach is able to handle the range of current and proposed Web metadata.
The whole resource approach has referential integrity problems, and the
on-resource approach cannot handle the many large chunk metadata formats. As
a result, the proposal in this document uses a mixed approach for handling
metadata, providing support for both on-resource, small chunk metadata and
whole resource, large chunk metadata. This mixed proposal provides
operations for creating, deleting, and querying attribute-value pairs stored
on Web resources. Simple binary relationships are stored in "Link" metadata,
which can point to large chunk metadata resources.

The mixed proposal requires a modification to the object model for HTTP/1.1
resources to provide a repository for metadata state information in addition
to the current repositories of state within an HTTP resource: the body and
headers. This new state information consists of attribute-value pairs, in
which the attribute's name is a URI, and the attribute's value is an untyped
octet stream. URIs are used for attribute names to provide a distributed,
extensible name space for attribute names. URIs also have the capability, if
dereferenced, of providing descriptive information on the syntax, semantics,
and use of the attribute.

Disadvantages of storing metadata in the existing HTTP object model lead to
the desire to modify it. While HTTP headers can and are used for small chunk
metadata, they have drawbacks for distributed authoring. Since users may
potentially create the name of an attribute, this raises the possibility of
name collisions with existing headers. More importantly, since there could
be potentially many attributes stored on a resource, it is important for
network efficiency that these attributes not be returned with every GET or
HEAD request. There are many proposals for placing metadata inside a Web
resource (e.g., placing a PICS record inside a resource), however, there is
no general way to define metadata in the body of resources of any media
type. As a consequence, placing metadata in the body would reduce metadata
use to just a few specific resource media types, limiting the general use of
metadata. Since metadata in headers leads to network inefficiency, and
metadata in bodies is impossible to generalize across all media types, it is
necessary to add new state for attribute-value metadata to the HTTP/1.1
object model.

The sections below describe in detail new HTTP methods which can be used to
create (ADDMETA), delete (DELMETA), search and retrieve (GETMETA)
attribute-value metadata, including simple bidirectional links. All of these
methods may return a message body that contains a listing of attribute
name/value pairs, however, the syntax for how to package these name/value
pairs has intentionally not yet been specified. It is hoped that one of the
Web metadata packaging proposals currently being discussed (e.g., Web
Collections or PICS-NG) will be useable as the return format for WebDAV
metadata methods. Until these specifications have settled, it is premature
to use them in a specification.

ADDMETA

Body

Body = *Pair
Pair = Name HT *Value CRLF
Name = URI
Value = Octet-CRLF | (CRLF HT)
Octet-CRLF = <Octet excluding CRLF>

Explanation:

The ADDMETA method is used to create one or more new attribute-value pairs
on the resource specified by the Request-URI. The body of the message MUST
be of content type text/tab-separated-values, containing a sequence of
attribute name/value pairs. Each name/value pair consists of a URI attribute
name, followed by a TAB, followed by a stream of octets which specify the
attribute's value. The value of the attribute may extend over several lines
in the body, each extension line beginning with a TAB. The name and value
uniquely define a metadata item; there may be multiple instances of the same
attribute name with different values, but only one instance of a particular
name/value pair. When used as the name of an attribute, the octets which
comprise the URI are used to determine its uniqueness; if two (or more) URIs
have different octet values, but are equivalent names for the same network
resource (e.g., http://foo.com/bar.html and ftp://foo.com/bar.html), they
are still considered to be different attribute names.

The server MUST attempt to create all the included name/value pairs. The
return message body (TBD) will indicate which creation attempts failed.

Example:

ADDMETA /foo.html HTTP/1.1
Host: ics.uci.edu
Content-Type: text/tab-separated-values

http://www.purl.org/W3C/Dublin/Author<TAB>Jim Whitehead
DAV:/LINK<TAB>Type = "DAV:/VERSIONING/HISTORY"
<TAB> Source = "http://ics.uci.edu/foo.html"
<TAB> Dest = "http://ics.uci.edu/foo.html/version_history"

Response Codes

200 OK indicates the server successfully created all of the name/value pairs
described in the request body.

A server may reject entries because they are not consistent with the
definition of the attribute. In that case a 406 Not Acceptable should be
returned.

Error conditions: empty body? Partial success/failure -- could not create
one of the name/value pairs.

TBD: A response message body indicating which name/value pairs the server
was unable to create.

DELMETA

Body

The body may either be of content type text/tab-separated-values, using the
syntax defined for the ADDMETA body, or of content type
application/dav-meta-search, using the syntax defined for the GETMETA body.

Explanation

The DELMETA method is used to remove a name/value pair from the resource
specified by the Request-URI. When the message body is of content type
text/tab-separated-values, the server MUST remove any attribute name/value
pair defined on the resource which exactly matches a name/value pair
specified in the message body.

When the message body is of content type application/dav-meta-search, the
server MUST remove any attribute name/value pair defined on the resource
which satisfies the search specification in the message body. If a server
implements the GETMETA and the DELMETA methods, it MUST provide support for
search specifications of content type application/dav-meta-search, and MAY
accept search specifications in other formats and/or content types for the
DELMETA method. All search formats accepted by GETMETA SHOULD be accepted by
DELMETA.

Response Codes

TBD -- need to reuse the response format from ADDMETA to return the
name/value pairs which were removed.

Error conditions: Syntax error in search syntax.

GETMETA Method

Body

Search = "(" "OR" *And-Expr")"
And-Expr = "(" "AND" Name Value ")"
Name = "(" "name" search-pattern ")"
Value = "(" "value" search-pattern ")"
search-pattern = <">*("*" | "?"
         | SpecialOctet | escaped-octet) <">
SpecialOctet = <OCTET without <"> or "*"
        or "?"  or "\">
escaped-octet  = "\" OCTET

Explanation

The GETMETA method returns all attribute name/value pairs defined on the
resource specified by the Request-URI which match the search syntax
specified in the message body. If a server implements the GETMETA method, it
MUST provide support for search specifications of content type
application/dav-meta-search, and MAY accept search specifications in other
formats and/or content types.

application/dav-meta-search media type

The application/dav-meta-search media type uses a subset of the s-expression
syntax to specify an attribute search syntax. Searches are a logical or of
limited regular expression matching of attribute name/value pairs. Each
name/value pair search is a logical and of regular expression matching on
the name and the value of the attribute. The "*" operator, which matches any
sequence of zero or more octets, and the "?" operator, which matches a
single octet, are the only regular expression operators allowed. If a search
needs to specify a literal "*" or "?", these characters are escaped using
the slash "/" convention, hence literal "*" is represented as "/*" and
literal "?" is represented as "/?".

Examples

GETMETA /foo.html HTTP/1.1
Host: www.ics.uci.edu
Content-Type: application/DAV-meta-search

(OR (AND (name "http://ydfh") (value "*"))
    (AND (name "foo:blah")(value "*")))

GETMETA /foo.html HTTP/1.1
Host: www.ics.uci.edu
Content-Type: application/DAV-meta-search

(OR (AND (name "*y?f*")(value "*"))
    (AND (name "f*?h")(value "*"))

Assuming that the metadata available on http://www.ics.uci.edu/foo.html did
not change between the requests, the response to the second GETMETA request
should, at a minimum, include all the responses from the first GETMETA
request.

GETMETA /index.html HTTP/1.1
Host: www.ics.uci.edu
Content-Type: application/DAV-meta-search

(OR (AND (name "*")(value "*")))

The server will return a list of all attribute name/value pairs defined on
the resource http://www.ics.uci.edu/index.html.

GETMETA /index.html HTTP/1.1
Host: www.ics.uci.edu
Content-Type: application/DAV-meta-search

(OR (AND (name "DAV:/LINK")(value "*")))

The server will return a list of all links defined on the resource
http://www.ics.uci.edu/index.html.

Response Codes

The response format for matching name/value pairs is TBD.

Error conditions: syntax error in search syntax. No matching name/value
pairs?

Link Metadata Type

Link := linkname HT linkvalue
linkname := "DAV:/Link"
linkvalue := Type SP Source SP Destination *(SP link-extension)
Source := "Source" "=" <"> URI <">
Destination := "Dest" "=" <"> URI <">
Type := "Type" "=" <"> URI <">

link-extension = token ["=" (token | quoted-string)]

A link can be viewed as a piece of metadata stored on a resource, which can
be stored in an attribute name/value pair. The Link predefined metadata type
provides a standard syntax for expressing typed links with two endpoints. By
definition, the name of a link attribute is "DAV:/Link" and the value of the
attribute is a triple consisting describes the link's type, source, and
destination, and potentially some extra descriptive information.

When recoding a DAV:/Link attribute, a server is only required to record the
Source, Destination, and Type. It may drop all other information in the
attribute value field if it so chooses. In addition a server MUST not record
two links which have the same source, destination, and type but differ on
other attributes. A link is uniquely identified by the
source/destination/type triple.

Please note the use of ":=" in the BNF productions above. This means that
white space is never implicit, simplifying link search specifications.

References

[Abrial, 1974] J. R. Abrial, "Data Semantics", in J. W. Klimbie and K. L.
Koffeman eds., Data Base Management, Proceedings of the IFIP Working
Conference on Data Base Management, Cargese, Corsica, France, April 1-5,
1974, p. 1-60.

[Berners-Lee, 1997] T. Berners-Lee, "Metadata Architecture." Unpublished
white paper, January 1997.
http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/DesignIssues/Metadata.html

[Cunningham & Faizi, 1996] J. Cunningham, A. Faizi, "Distributed Authoring
and Versioning Protocol", version 0.1, unpublished manuscript, October,
1996. http://www.ics.uci.edu/~ejw/authoring/ns_dav.html

[Engelbart, 1968] D. C. Engelbart and W. K. English. "A Research Center for
Augmenting Human Intellect" , AFIPS Proceedings of the Fall Joint Computer
Conference , 1968. Vol. 33, Part 1, p. 395-420. Thompson Book Company,
Washington, D.C. 1968.

[Goland et. al, 1997] Y. Y. Goland, E. J. Whitehead,Jr., A. Faizi, S. R.
Carter, D. Jensen, "Extensions for Distributed Authoring and Versioning on
the World Wide Web" Internet draft, work-in-progress.
draft-jensen-webdav-ext-01,
ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-jensen-webdav-ext-01.txt,

[Hull & King, 1987] R. Hull and R. King, "Semantic Database Modeling:
Survey, Applications, and Research Issues", ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 19.,
No. 3, September 1987, p. 201-260.

[Lagoze, 1996] C. Lagoze, "The Warwick Framework, A Container Architecture
for Diverse Sets of Metadata." D-Lib Magazine, July/August, 1996.
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july96/lagoze/07lagoze.html

[Lasher, Cohen, 1995] R. Lasher, D. Cohen, "A Format for Bibliographic
Records," RFC 1807. Stanford, Myricom. June, 1995.

[Maloney, 1996] M. Maloney, "Hypertext Links in HTML." Internet draft
(expired), work-in-progress, January, 1996.

[MARC, 1994] Network Development and MARC Standards, Office, ed. 1994.
"USMARC Format for Bibliographic Data", 1994. Washington, DC: Cataloging
Distribution Service, Library of Congress.

[Miller et.al., 1996] J. Miller, T. Krauskopf, P. Resnick, W. Treese, "PICS
Label Distribution Label Syntax and Communication Protocols" Version 1.1,
W3C Recommendation REC-PICS-labels-961031.
http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/REC-PICS-labels-961031.html

[Nelson, 1981] T. Nelson, "Literary Machines." Swarthmore, PA, 1981.

[Slein et al., 1997] J. A. Slein, F. Vitali, E. J. Whitehead, Jr., D. G.
Durand, "Requirements for Distributed Authoring and Versioning on the World
Wide Web," Internet-draft, work-in-progress,
draft-slein-www-dist-author-00.txt

[Weibel, 1995] S. Weibel, "Metadata: The Foundations of Resource
Description." D-Lib Magazine, July, 1995.
http://www.cnri.reston.va.us/home/dlib/July95/07weibel.html

[Weibel et al., 1995] S. Weibel, J. Godby, E. Miller, R. Daniel, "OCLC/NCSA
Metadata Workshop Report." http://purl.oclc.org/metadata/dublin_core_report
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 1997 20:26:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:42 GMT