- From: Sam Hunting <shunting@goSPS.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:10:20 -0400
- To: <xlxp-dev@fsc.fujitsu.com>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
[Paul Prescod writes]: If it was RDF you were getting at in your question about "metadata" then I want to say that RDF seems to use its own definition of metadata which as far as I know is unique to RDF. Furthermore, the definition is not explicit in the RDF specification. The definition seems to be "machine-understandable information associated with a document in order to make the data managable." My experience is similar. I'm working with a large producer of intellectual property, where locators can be anything from a note on the back of a file folder, to a bar code printout, to a mainframe database record, to an Oracle record. Their internal term for "metadata" was "bibdata" -- bibliographic data. I finally figured out that in practice, bibdata meant "whatever we've been able to get into a computer" -- since they had naturally prioritized managing their data (even the data that remained on paper) with computers. However, in the context of managing electronic intellectual property, virtually any data or markup has potential for helping to manage the corpus. So, "bibdata" turned out to be one of those shrink-wrap-like words -- capable of wrapping anything. So with "metadata". Presumably, the word speaks to those who've had to cope with managing this manageable data. Good for marketing, I guess. Sam Hunting
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 1999 20:05:37 UTC