On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 01:40:13AM -0500, Scott Gregory Miller wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 10 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 08:40:18AM -0400, Benjamin Coates wrote:
> > > >From toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > What's the point of attaching this highly descriptive stuff to the file at
> > > all?
> > > Wouldn't this belong in an seperate indexing/searching layer? The sort of
> > > metadata you need in a CHK is stuff like content-type or part-number or
> > > whatever, that lets you interpret the data you have, not author or keywords or
> > > subject (that lets you find or categorize the data)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Benjamin Coates
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The point of putting it in the same package is validation. Hard to dispute that
> > the metadata was meant to refer to the data if it's in the same package.
> Thats hardly a reason. If the metadata points to the CHK of the data
> thats an equally strong binding.
>
No it's not. It's only an assertion by whomever inserted the metadata. For the binding
to be equally as strong, the data would also have to refer back to the CHK of the
metadata.
Then the agreement between inserter of data and inserter of metadata would be proven.
David Schutt
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
