Hi All,
Wasnt going to send this to the list, Im guilty of causing enough
trouble already recently, but it seems as though an article from the
wiki page - metacrap - http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm -
highlights the issue Simon has brought to bear...
I for one am quite interested to mete this out;
to give another example, if author IS metadata and the number of pages
IS NOT metadata
what specific properties of these two pieces of information can help us
define metadata?
is it a moot point?
Perhaps theres nothing intrisic about those pieces of information that
does help define metadata, and it is simply a question of what can
usefully and efficiently be stored with the view to facilitating the
retrieval of that information... if the number of pages in a book is
useful search criteria then it becomes metadata, if it is not useful it
doesnt.
if the size, power, features etc. of a washing machine are useful search
criteria then they are metadata?
kind regards
Steve
Simon Grant wrote:
> Steve
>
> Thanks - the link is fun, but not just fun to me: could be the basis
> of a useful discussion.
>
> The author is in fact guilty of confusing the potential metadata
> categories that I have set out.
> The size, power, features etc. of a washing machine is just what I
> would *not* call metadata.
> It's just plain structured data, wouldn't you say? That's the nub of
> my question.
>
> Feel free to reply to list if moved.
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
> At 10:18 2005-05-24, you wrote:
>
>> i hadnt spotted this rather funny explanation of why metadata doesnt
>> work before either:
>>
>> http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm
>>
>> I didnt send it to the list, Ive been bad enough recently!
>>
>> enjoy
>> Steve
>
>
|