- From: Andrew Daviel <andrew@andrew.triumf.ca>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 17:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
- To: search@mail.mccmedia.com
- cc: meta2@mrrl.lut.ac.uk, www-html@w3.org
We need a consensus on how to specify metadata for non-HTML Web objects, IMO. The "search engine" META tags are in widespread use, and most people know how to use them, viz. <head> <meta name="description" content="object description here"> <meta name="keywords" content="various keywords here"> </html> The Dublin Core set (http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core_elements) defines a set of standard media-independant elements which may be applied to HTML documents, and the simple elements "Author" and "Copyright" are also in common use. These all apply to the document that they are embedded in. There is a need to index non-HTML objects which have no well-defined metadata facility, and also non-text objects. These include audio and video files, PostScript or PDF documents, executable binaries, and data sets. It might be possible to include metadata in HTTP headers, but people seem reluctant to bulk the headers doing this, and much of the linking ability is lost. http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/html/draft-ietf-html-relrev-00.txt suggests a META relationship for the LINK tag, as in <LINK REL=META HREF="metadata.html"> for a forward relationship and <LINK REV=META HREF="blossom.gif"> for a reverse relationship. The Dublin Core element IDENTIFIER may also be used, perhaps in the form <meta name="dc.identifier" scheme=URL content="http://some.org/blossom.gif">, though it may be used for other purposes, such as ISBN, ISSN, UPC etc. and has no concept of relative URLs I propose: That the reverse META relationship in an HTML header be used to indicate that metainformation in the current document applies to the referenced object, not the current document itself. That the forward META relationship in HTTP (RFC 2068-19.6.2.4) be optionally used to indicate the existance of metainformation pertaining to a non-text object. That the reverse META relationship in HTTP be optionally used in an identical fashion to the reverse META relationship in HTML. Example - the metadata: HTTP/1.0 200 OK Content-type: text/html Link: <http://www.some.org/blossom.gif>; rev="meta" <html><head><title>Apple Blossoms</title> <LINK REV=META HREF="blossom.gif"> <meta name="dc.title" content="Apple Blossoms"> <meta name="dc.description" content="Apple Blossoms in Springtime"> <meta name="dc.creator" content="Ann Photog"> <meta name="dc.identifier" scheme="url" content="http://www.some.org/blossom.gif"> <meta name="copyright" content="Ann Photog, 1997"> </head><body> (<a href="blossom.gif">here's the photo</a>) </body></html> and the object: HTTP/1.0 200 OK Content-type: image/gif Link: <http://www.some.org/blossom.html>; rel="meta" GIF89a etc. etc. This would require that discovery agents such as Web robots and spiders associate the metainformation with the correct object, listing e.g. <a href="http://www.some.org/blossom.gif">Apple Blossoms</a> "Apple Blossoms in Springtime"; Creator: Ann Photog rather than <a href="http://www.some.org/blossom.html">Apple Blossoms</a> and optionally follow the HTTP Link header to discover metainformation when traversing the original object (blossom.gif). Perhaps an empty HREF field <LINK REV=META HREF=""> could be used to signify that the metadata pertains to an offline object, such as a book or statue (which may have a valid non-URL DC.IDENTIFIER element) ... Andrew Daviel TRIUMF & Vancouver Webpages
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 1997 15:50:27 UTC