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

> Michael Kifer wrote:
> >>
> >>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.
> 
> But your arguments is that metadata everywhere would bloat the PS beyond 
> all recognition: what if we do not specify a PS for metadata, except in 
> some specific cases (e.g. groups)?

See my earlier message to Sanro.


> > 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.
> 
> So, FLD would have to specify a PS for metadata on everything. But FLD 
> being a framework, that does not mean that any specific dialect based on 
> FLD would have a PS for metadata but for a few specific constructs. So, 
> no concrete syntax being absurdely bloated, right?

The proposal in question was to bloat BLD itself.


> And, anyway, in a dialect where some information, say: priorities, has 
> an impact on the semantics, that iformation is part of the rule, and, 
> thus, not meta-data. So that even FLD would not have to specify a PS for 
> metadata on everything.

No, it is not part of a rule. At least, not how it is normally perceived.

> (Note to self: seems too easy; I probably missed something)
> 
> > Do you mean to standardize some of the attributes of the meta?
> 
> Yes, this is what I meant.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Maybe, or maybe not :-)
> 
> Maybe we could just have a quick poll on which meta-data everyone would 
> like to have standardized, and maybe we would see that there is a 
> obvious subset of the answers on which nobody objects?
> 
> Christian (always the optimist :-)

I do not share your optimism :-)


	--michael

Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 16:59:03 UTC