W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2009

RE: metadata, resources, and angels & pins

From: <john.1.kemp@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:29:43 +0200
To: <masinter@adobe.com>, <wangxiao@musc.edu>
CC: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <888B565E30724C45BABA6E337DEE6B4D3A71189F48@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
> Of ext Larry Masinter
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 9:01 AM
> To: Xiaoshu Wang
> Cc: www-tag
> Subject: metadata, resources, and angels & pins


> I think of "metadata" as assertions about a resource; resources are, of
> course, usually identified by a URI, although in some cases you have a
> representation "in hand" as well as the metadata about it.
> Assertions are not "facts" but rather "opinions" (an assertion by an
> agent of the agent's belief of facts.)

Indeed this is sounding a bit like security architecture terminology, such as defined by RFC 2828 [1], SAML[2] and others, where an agent makes a claim or assertion about a named subject (perhaps naming that subject with a URI), and other agents may verify the assertions about the named subject, perhaps based on their level of trust in the agent making the claim. 


> This is still a little sloppy, but I hope it gives an indication of the
> direction I'd like to go in metadata access discussions, and the hope
> that it will be rewarding and not worthy of Xiaoshu's pessimism.

It certainly sounds workable so far.


- johnk

[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2828.txt

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAML_2.0

Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 13:32:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:29 UTC