W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > February 1997

Re: There Are No Metadocuments

From: Lou Burnard <lou@vax.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:32:28 +0000
To: gtn@ebt.com
CC: W3C-SGML-WG@w3.org, lou@vax.ox.ac.uk
Message-ID: <009AFBB9.40C12E81.3@vax.ox.ac.uk>
Please don't use the term "meta-document". It invites confusion with the term
"metadata" (currently much bandied around). Some documents contain information.
Others contain information about information (metadata). I would expect every
XML piece of content worth its salt to have an associated metadata document (or
metadocument) describing what it is and where it came from, in the same way as
a catalogue card describes a book, or a tei header describes a tei document. 
I think this usage is now sufficiently established that applying it differently
here (to include a lot of things which wd normally be the *subject* of a
metadata description) is just going to make people's brains hurt.

While I'm commenting on terminology:

I like "link end", but I still prefer "target".
I don't like "explainer". It sounds like an annoying elderly female relative.
What's wrong with "caption"? (a caption can be explanatory or titular). Or if
you want to be really confusing... how about "tag" (as in what people spraty
opn on tunnel walls with aerosol paint...)

Received on Tuesday, 11 February 1997 10:34:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:07 UTC