- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:00:12 +0000
- 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 intuitions. Dan > 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. >> >>Dan >> >>> 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 >>>>KOS >>>> > people today and when I asked them to comment on our document they >>>>also >>>> > 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