Re: [model] section 3.2.4 Metadata

I don't think what you propose will work.
To be more specific, I can not udnerstand how I would act on that if 
it were agreed to.

I am not going to claim that section 3.2.4 is particularly 
readable.  It is hard to read.
But unless we define what we mean by meta-data, and how it can be 
used, it is meaningless to define how the model works with 
meta-data.  It won't help anyone.

The basic problem is that different people mean different things when 
they say "meta-data."  For the ForCES work we mean a particular kind 
/ set of meta-data, used in a particular fashion.
If we leave out the explanation, people will think we mean all sorts 
of other things.

No, the schema does not capture most of "what is meta-data".  The 
schema does not capture all the aspects of the LFB definitions.  It 
can't.  We did not, for example, include a programming language in 
which to formally specify the actions of the LFB class.
There are two reasons we describe meta-data:
1) For both the human being and the CE, it is important to know how 
the meta-data flows, so that it can be understood how operations relate.
2) Some LFBs have tables that either generate meta-data or are 
indexed by meta-data.  It is important to have a way to clearly 
specify which piece of meta-data is being generate / consumed.  (In 
some cases, one even has tables to specify which piece of meta-data 
is being manipulated.)
So we need some significant discussion of meta-data.  (This is in 
contrast to frame-type which is almost purely for human consumption.)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 02:55 PM 12/27/2006, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

>Folks,
>
>I am going to start where i left off on the model..
>
>Section 3.2.4 is a readability nightmare. Its one of those texts i kept
>reading and re-reading again to make sure i understood the point.
>It has two main content grasps:
>a) What and how metadata can slice bread
>b) Forces metadata definition and usage
>
>May i recommend we move #a type text to an appendix? This would cut down
>on the text and get to the point quicker.
>In regards to #b i dont see some of the definitions really captured in
>the schema (on page 75 in my printout). Of course this could be my
>mis-interpretation after being fatigued and put to sleep reading 3.2.4
>
>If theres agreement i will capture this in the tracker.
>
>cheers,
>jamal