Metadata proliferation
Misha Wolf (misha.wolf@reuters.com)
Sat, 08 Mar 1997 18:18:41 +0000 (GMT)
There has been a recent debate, on the www-international list, regarding the
relationship between:
1. <... LANG=xxx> language tagging of HTML as per RFC 2070,
2. <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Language" Content="xxx">.
To these could be added the Dublin Core Metadata element LANGUAGE:
3. <META NAME = "DC.language" CONTENT = "...">
This example highlights the proliferation of various kinds of Web-related
metadata. This comes in at least three flavours (yet another is provided by
PICS):
1. HTML-based
2. HTTP/META HTTP-EQUIV-based
3. META-based
These flavours seem to be very loosely coupled. I am trying to understand the
uses and relative priorities of the various flavours. What should happen when
they disagree?
The last two flavours are designed to exist both inside and outside an HTML
document. Would it be sensible to argue that where the HTML flavour is present,
the other two should be absent/ignored?
In what directions do we want Web-related metadata to evolve? The requirements
driving the various flavours are different; how much do they have in common?
A note for readers not familiar with the Dublin Core, taken from
draft-kunze-dc-00.txt:
The ... motivation ... [is to] ... improve the prospects for resource
discovery on the Web. Specifically, the goal [is] to identify a simple
set of common description elements that authors (or content managers)
could embed in their documents to promote their discovery ... The term
"Dublin Core" applies to this simple core of descriptive elements.
The fifteen Dublin Core Metadata elements are: TITLE, CREATOR, SUBJECT,
DESCRIPTION, PUBLISHER, CONTRIBUTOR, DATE, TYPE, FORMAT, IDENTIFIER, SOURCE,
LANGUAGE, RELATION, COVERAGE and RIGHTS.
Misha