My personal (but *STRONG*) belief is that severe civil penalties should
be brought to bear on anyone using the term meta-metadata.
Metadata is first-class data; it certainly can have descriptive
metadata of its own.
stu
----- Begin Included Message -----
>From [log in to unmask] Wed Jun 11 23:22:45 1997
X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:09:52 +1000
To: [log in to unmask]
From: Alan Arnold <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: metadata for metadata?
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Now all the heady DC4 stuff is nearly put to bed, perhaps one of you could
enlighten an absolute meta-neophyte.
Is there such a thing as metadata of/for(?) metadata? Are there rules to
describe, say the creation date of a metadata record, or the creator, or
the last-modified data or the modification history etc. Seems to me that
some of these things impinge directly on the "quality" of the metadata and
may be of concern to people who maintain databases of metadata, but I don't
think I've seen any discussion of this in my recent quest for discovery.
----
Alan Arnold, School of Chemistry, University College (UNSW)
Australian Defence Force Academy, CANBERRA ACT 2600 Australia
voice:+61 6 268 8080 fax:+61 6 268 8002 e-mail: [log in to unmask]
WWW: http://www.ch.adfa.oz.au/apa/apa.html
----- End Included Message -----
|