Re: We need a META schema registry!

Benjamin Franz wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Andreas Koenig wrote:
> > Even with the best and most diligent registration authority, the META
> > tag is a two edged sword. It transports stuff nobody is asking for
> > explicitly. It steals the net bandwidth. Please read
> > for a proposal how the net can be
> > freed from this exacerbating bloat today.
> I've said it before and will undoubtedly say it again: NO scheme for
> meta-infomration significantly more complex that the existing de facto
> standard of 'Description' and 'keywords' META tags is going to be
> successful with the market as it is right now. Users don't *understand*
> them. Anything the *average* user cannot understand will simply be ignored
> by them. Even the *original* META scheme that produced 'description' and
> 'keywords' included two more meta fields regarding data type
> (resource-type) and distribution - both of which have vanished from
> general usage due to incomprehension of application or need by users.
> <snip -arguments that Joe Six Pack won't use rigorous metadata>

For those users who have no NEED to use such a system there is
the need for exactly what you suggest, a very (almost uselessly)
simple system. But Joe Six Pack isn't the only one using the

We (libraries, document management systems, technical writers, etc)
need something much more rigorous. In all of the discussions
I've had with people wanting a system like the one being
discussed I don't think anyone ever suggested an end user
would use it.

It's the high end users and companies that need the real metadata
system (and registry) that are the ones that are going to pay
the large amounts of money for servers and systems. Those are
different market forces for different markets.


Received on Tuesday, 18 March 1997 11:02:38 UTC