On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 10:24:14AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 01:15:44PM -0500, Brandon wrote:
> > > Appending the metadata key to the CHK strikes me as an inelegant
> > > solution to a non-problem.
> >
> > It has already been generally agreed that there are two problems which
> > have to be solved. Only one solution to these two problems has been
> > suggested, which is taking metadata out of CHKs. So unless you have a more
> > elegant solution to the same two problems then its elegance is not a valid
> > issue.
>
> I don't think that the possibility that two identical documents might
> have different CHKs due to differences in the metadata, is actually a
> serious problem. The metadata is supposed to be a description of the
> data, and thus identical data should have identical metadata. If this
> doesn't happen, then the solution is to provide reccomended standards
> for metadata (such as the de-facto mime-type standard we have for
> fproxy), not require that the user have two keys to access any document.
It is a real problem because Brandon and others want to use highly descriptive
human written metadata, for example the Dublin Core stuff includes several fuzzy
fields.
>
> > If you'd like to debate whether the two problems that need to be solved
> > are in fact problems, then that's a separate issue. My arguements for the
> > second problem (different metadata causing identifical files to not
> > collide) has not been refuted. The first problem is debatable if you'd
> > like to debate it.
>
> I am not entirely clear on the distinction between these two problems,
> but none of the problems you have outlined strike me as real problems.
>
> Ian.
--
Always hardwire the explosives
-- Fiona Dexter quoting Monkey, J. Gregory Keyes, Dark Genesis
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
