W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Uniform access to metadata: XRD use case.

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:42:32 -0400
Message-ID: <760bcb2a0903120442j2c6a81a8i6ab610963b4aa49@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, "connolly@w3.org" <connolly@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Sorry for my outburst, and thanks for responding with more civility
than I showed. I've been staring at this issue for over a year and am
getting tired of it I guess...

I think I have always said: Things like RDFa and XMP are great and
should be used whenever possible.
If you use "outboard metadata" in situations where you can also
control embedded metadata, you should not use the outboard channel in
preference to the embedded channel - any outboard metadata should in
this situation be a subset of the embedded metadata, an alternative
path.

That said, controllable embedded metadata is not always possible or
practical, so there are some situations where there will be
information in the outboard metadata that is not carried by the
"representation". (Would it help if I gave you a list of content-types
that do *not* support embedded metadata? Surely you can imagine this
list as easily as I can.)

And fully uniform access to metadata (across ALL media types) is
unherently outboard.

What sort of usage guide do we need here, and how should it be
published? I don't think the RFC will be a good place to go over all
these issues. Maybe my TAG review from last May (the one that began
this thread) could evolve into more of a how-to, complementing Eran's
work.

Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2009 11:43:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:28 UTC