paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Sep 25 12:31:54 PDT 2012
On Sep 25, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Dave Crocker <dcrocker at bbiw.net> wrote:
> On 9/25/2012 12:08 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>>> Then I don't understand what you are proposing.
>> Proposal: add a new definition to Section 1.1:
>> * Metadata: information that is derived from, or extracted from, the document. Metadata can be collected manually, with tools that make guesses based on document structure, or by markings in the document.
> This excludes metadata that is added to the document from other sources.
Just to be clear, metadata is no *added to* a document, it is data that is *about* a document.
Having said that, you are correct that my proposed definition does not encompass all types of metadata of an RFC. A concrete example: "RFC 6694 originated in the AppsAWG Working Group" is valuable metadata that is not derived from or extracted from the document.
> Arguably, this includes structural informaion. In any event, it leaves "derived from, or extracted from," as both limiting and potentially confusing.
* Metadata: information about a document that is often derived from, or extracted from, the document. Metadata can be collected manually, with tools that make guesses based on document structure, by markings in the document, or from the history of the production or publication of a document.
Having said that, in line with the other threads this morning about getting rid of the "Currently" stuff, I'd be happy to drop the second sentence above.
Regardless, I think using the Wikipedia definition ("The term metadata is ambiguous, as it is used for two fundamentally different concepts (types)...") is not a good thing for this document.
More information about the rfc-interest