> The notion that there should be a difference between metadata that is
> embedded versus metadata that is held in a seperate database raises
> serious problems. To tie the interpretation of metadata to whether it is
> embedded or exists somewhere 'out there' is a serious mistake that would
> cripple the potential usefulness of the metadata. Interpretation of some
> aspects of the metadata would be dependent upon the context, which means
> it could not be reliably separated from the resource it describes.
>
I've been saying for a few days that embedded metadata has real
utility and is also great for demonstration purposes, but I also see
the problem Stu has defined above and want to be clear that my
advocacy for embedded DC does not mean I see a difference
between embedded DC and DC in a database.
I thought DC data was DC data wherever it was. I also thought
that, wherever it was, its purpose was resource discovery. And,
finally, I thought DC represented a CORE of metadata and that
local or custom variables and adaptations could take care of non-
CORE issues. I don't see why the expected variety of applications
or manifestations of DC this model enables changes that purpose
or creates a 'different' DC. In my simplistic view of it; the
applications may vary, but the definition of the core does not and
the distance (I hope) between 'camp 1' and 'camp 2' is on the
application level.
I've lost it, but Diane Hillman had some comments on Ricky's initial
post that helped me live peacefully with two (or more) 'camps'.
Drive safe this weekend!
Ed
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|