- From: Ora Lassila <lassila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:34:11 -0500
- To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Yaron, At 01:04 AM 3/18/97 -0800, Yaron Goland wrote: >In order to keep the meta-data model "light", I further propose that >meta-data take the form of a header. In addition I recommend that >meta-data behave like headers in that multiple pieces of meta-data with >the same header name must be unambiguously combinable using commas. Several approaches to representing and transporting metadata have recently been discussed (elsehwere). Syntactically these range from extensions of PICS (s-expressions) to the use of XML. What are the advantages of the syntax you are proposing? If I understand correctly your are proposing a flat namespace of attributes without any object-model behind it. I do not think this is a good idea. Choosing attribute names arbitrarily will eventually lead to name collisions. It is also conceivable that people will define "schemata" for metadata for various purposes (e.g. the Dublin Core). This would also allow the definition of default values. The schemata could be referred to via URLs (at least the URLs could name the schemata like in PICS services are named). BTW, PICS labels can already be requested and transported via HTTP. - Ora -- Ora Lassila, <lassila@w3.org>, http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/People/Lassila Visiting Scientist (from Nokia Research Center) World Wide Web Consortium, MIT/LCS phone: +1 (617) 238-4908
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 1997 09:35:59 UTC