- From: <john.1.kemp@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:29:43 +0200
- To: <masinter@adobe.com>, <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- CC: <www-tag@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf > Of ext Larry Masinter > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 9:01 AM > To: Xiaoshu Wang > Cc: www-tag > Subject: metadata, resources, and angels & pins [...] > I think of "metadata" as assertions about a resource; resources are, of > course, usually identified by a URI, although in some cases you have a > representation "in hand" as well as the metadata about it. > Assertions are not "facts" but rather "opinions" (an assertion by an > agent of the agent's belief of facts.) Indeed this is sounding a bit like security architecture terminology, such as defined by RFC 2828 [1], SAML[2] and others, where an agent makes a claim or assertion about a named subject (perhaps naming that subject with a URI), and other agents may verify the assertions about the named subject, perhaps based on their level of trust in the agent making the claim. [...] > This is still a little sloppy, but I hope it gives an indication of the > direction I'd like to go in metadata access discussions, and the hope > that it will be rewarding and not worthy of Xiaoshu's pessimism. It certainly sounds workable so far. Regards, - johnk [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2828.txt [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAML_2.0
Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 13:32:00 UTC