From: "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
> I really don't like the "metadata" qualifier. It's confusing and starts
> down a slippery slope of defining the difference between data and
> especially when the data IS metadata.
From: "Robert Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]>
> Then for every index we need a second context set which says 'this is
> exactly the same as context set b, but is for the metadata about the
> record, not the record itself'.
> So we're still defining the difference between metadata and data, but we
> also have double the number of indexes. Even if this is a gross over
> estimate, there will be a lot of indexes which are applicable to data and
> metadata and it seems silly to duplicate them unnecessarily.
No I think there's an easier solution short of distinguishing data from
metadata. It is reasonable to distinguish descriptive metadata from other
metadata (administrative, technical, structural; and for simplicitly sake
just call it all administrative+).
We're really talking only about administrative+ metadata, aren't we?
Descriptive metadata is irrelevant -- as far as srw is concerned, if it
exists it's part of the content. I don't think it matters what the content
of the record is, descriptive metadata, object, or both.
So why not define an index set for administrative+ metadata -- "adm" ? And
we're only talking about a handful of elements -- identifier, timestamps,
creator (of the record) -- certainly not 'title' or 'subject'.