Re: Proposed issue: site metadata hook (slight variation)

Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

> The Web methods GET, PUT, etc. enable you to interact
> with the book.
>
> The SW methods MGET, MPUT, etc. enable you to interact
> with the description of the book, with the card from
> the card catalog, so to speak.
>
> If you *want* to give that card its own name, fine, but
> usually folks just say "the card for book X". It's
> normal behavior to refer to such bodies of knowledge
> indirectly. That doesn't mean you have to, but it's
> reasonable for the default mode of operation to do so.
>  
>
IMHO, two aspects get lost by using the MGET, MPUT, etc for retrieving 
metadata.

I would argue that sometimes metadata about metadata is required (e.g., 
quality assertions about metadata assertions) .  This is why metadata 
should be a first class citizen (i.e., have its own URI).

Secondly, there is a tremendous amount of metadata which would be 
qualified as opinions (e.g., think of Moody bond ratings).  Furthermore, 
metadata about a resource is often created by third parties (i.e., not 
the owner/publisher of the resource).

These were the reasons Roger Costello and I argued for adding the 
Meta-Location and Meta-About HTTP headers.  Which support those aspects.

David Jacobs