>>> Karen Coyle <lists_at_kcoyle.net> wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Krichel <krichel_at_OPENLIB.ORG>:
>
>> Weinheimer Jim quotes Rick Erway
>>
>>> The reason is that a butterfly specimen has entirely different
>>> metadata than a painting of a butterfly.
>>
>> A butterfly specimen has no metadata since the specimen is not
>> data.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel
>> http://authorclaim.org/profile/pkr1
>> skype: thomaskrichel
>>
>
>
> Well, maybe, maybe not. Is the specimen any more "real" than a
> painting? Is the painting data? Is a book a "real thing" or data? Is
> there anything you cannot create metadata for?
>
> One of my beefs with some of the semantic web thinking is that it
> encompasses a certain definition of "reality", a concept that has
> occupied philosophers throughout the ages, and whose definition is not
> be the same for everyone. Yet, under certain philosophies of "reality"
> anyone who does not agree with you must be wrong
Ok, I also have problems with the concept of "real-world entities" in the semantic web thinking. I think we don't have any access to reality but through "mediums" like perception, language, writing, pictures, music etc. So essentially, every talking about reality is just talking about some "transcriptions" of reality, every understanding a remaking of previous understandings. We never get to reality itself. And with identifying things and their specific relations we actually make worlds which may be false or right (but not in the sense of conforming to a "real world").
Anyway, we are talking about data and metadata in the first place. I in the past stumbled upon metadata for furniture, metadata for books and metadata for RDF-graphs and much more. My argument is that not the either the term ' data' or 'metadata' is false or unappropriate but the distinction between them particular if we think of data and metadata as of two classes of being where no one date can be metadata AND data. Thinking like this brings us more trouble than it helps us solving problems. (BTW, I once heard that the term "metadata" came around not until the 1990s. Is that true?)
A colleague's twitter-update says: "X being meta to Y is a matter of perspective." (http://twitter.com/literarymachine/status/7712430997) So it would be at least good practice to say to what data specific metadata is meta. Otherwise it's like saying: "Bob is smaller." But no person isn't just smaller or older. A person always is smaller in relation to somebody or something else! Like 'smaller' or 'older' 'meta' is (logically) a two-place predicate (or what is it called in english?). So it necessarily demands a PAIR of things to be a complete proposition.
Adrian
P.S.: My above touched view on "reality" derives from Nelson Goodman, see this excerpt of Nelson Goodman's "Ways of Worldmaking" for more: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/goodman_worldmaking.htm or ist first chapter: http://books.google.de/books?id=Y5aMV3EE6WcC.
Received on Tue Jan 19 2010 - 09:21:17 EST