dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Sep 25 11:12:00 PDT 2012
On 9/25/2012 10:46 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
> <rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> To me, there is a difference between the metadata for which the
>> purpose is to describe the document itself and metadata that
>> describes specific content within the document. Both are metadata,
>> but the intent is somewhat different.
> Fully agree, but that differentiation is irrelevant to 99% of the
> people who will use the metadata. They care about "can I use this
> metadata to find the RFC I want" and "can I use this metadata to
> find the information I want in this RFC".
So, you think the entry for the word in Wikipedia is inappropriate for
99% of the people who use the term?
The fact that most people on the consumer side do not have to deal with
structural metadata does not justify using the term to exclude that use.
>> This is in line with Dave's pointer to the wikipedia entry. The
>> distinction between structural metadata (e.g., the structure that
>> holds a code component*) and descriptive metadata (e.g., category
>> of the RFC**) seems useful.
> To whom? This is a serious question. The RFC Editor should produce
> metadata that is of the widest value. Producing two unrelated sets
> of metadata doesn't seem to meet that goal.
Exactly. Useful to producers (and designers) as well as consumers.
This is a standard term of art in computer science (and probably some
other information sciences.) Let's not re-define it.
More information about the rfc-interest