Re: Metadata for all and PS for metadata (Was Re: where to hang the metadata?)

> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > 
> > So the proposed compromise (which Chris also sent the list - we talked
> > about it on the phone with Christian) is to have both the <Group> and
> > <Rule> wrappers.  I'd also like metadata everywhere else, too, but I
> > think I can life with this compromise if everyone else can.
> 
> Just for clarification: what would be the argument against allowing 
> metadata on all objects, that is, allowing a <meta> role element as a 
> child of any class (capitalized tag) element (this question is othogonal 
> to that of identifying rules vs groups)?

See my answer to Sandro a few mins ago.

> Also, since there is a consensus that metadata do not impact the 
> semantics, why do we need a presentation syntax for the metadata?

Metadata *may* affect the semantics, although I do not know yet how to
express it in FLD. There is a whole class of useful dialects based on
prioritized logics (one is courteous LP) where rule labels and other
non-rule info are used in defining the semantics.

> More precisely: there seem to be a consensus that metadata about rule 
> groups and individual groups still need have a presentation syntax. Does 
> that indicate that some metadata about them should be part of the BLD 
> dialect (e.g. group/rule name/IRI etc)?

Do you mean to standardize some of the attributes of the meta? It would be
useful, although I am afraid we will not be done any time soon with this
given the amount of heat that even seemingly simple issues tend to
generate.


	cheers
	  --michael  


> And, of course, having a PS for the metadata on some Groups and Rules 
> does not imply that we need one for metadata on other classes, even if 
> we agree to allow metadata on any object; not for BLD, at least. Or does it?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christian
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 16:17:50 UTC