W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-comments@w3.org > March 2015

Re: "metadata" as "data about data"

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:00:12 +0000
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=7PunmLVf+1Vmvo4tA_cRMrXau7imTQJhbvMYrmJf+FAw@mail.gmail.com>
To: João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>
Cc: Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, "public-dwbp-comments@w3.org" <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>
On 5 March 2015 at 16:55, João Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org> wrote:
> Dear Dan,
> I don¹t see how the statement ³Dan Brickley works for Google² could be
> interpreted as metadata in our definition (nor in other meaningful/useful
> definition for metadata). Can you please clarify?

If it appeared in the context of provenance information for a
collection of files, describing the creator of those files, then
conventionally this would be considered "metadata". It provides data
about data - specifically who the employer of the creator of the data
might be. But I don't want to argue the point, if your experience of
the word "metadata" has been different to mine, you may have different


> Regards,
> João Paulo
> On 5/3/15, 1:48 PM, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>>On 5 March 2015 at 16:43, Joao Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> Would you please provide an example where the text we use could lead to
>>> conceptual confusion?
>>> I don't understand the disclaimer suggested by Dan. What is meant by
>>> "absolute" distinction?
>>The idea is that a statement like "Dan Brickley works for Google" is
>>not inherently metadata versus data. It can be considered data, or
>>considered metadata, depending on context and application. Therefore
>>we should be careful not to give people the idea that there exists any
>>deep important distinction between the two. In a 1990s context, this
>>explained the very general approach taken in the RDF design. In the
>>context of your document, the value is not so much that it would avoid
>>conceptual confusion, but rather that it avoids presenting a
>>(naturally) confusing distinction as a clear one.
>>> best regards,
>>> João Paulo
>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5 March 2015 at 16:20, Christophe Guéret
>>>> <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl> wrote:
>>>> > Hi Dan,
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks for this! Funny thing is that I was sitting in a meeting with
>>>> > people today and when I asked them to comment on our document they
>>>> > pointed out that this definition of metadata would not fit everyone.
>>>> Some debates are destined to go on forever :) Thanks for considering
>>>> the suggestion...
>>>> Dan
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2015 17:00:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:38:10 UTC