On 9/12/08 3:59 AM, "Peter Keane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sounds very much like you are trying to shoe horn non-categorical metadata >> into the atom:category construct. Please don't do this ;-) > > Well, I guess it depends what you mean by categorizing. Is asserting an RDF > triple in a sense "categorizing"? While I could imagine lots of things that > are categorical metadata, I'd have a tough time figuring out a good set of > criteria to define "non-categorical" metadata. What I meant is that are the values of the keys likely to be shared amongst multiple members of the larger data set, and would it make sense to group according to those values? If not, you don't have a category, just values. For example, assigning "tall" or "short" to a "height" key would be categorising, while assigning "1.72", "1.73", "1.85", "1.54" to a "height" key wouldn't be categorising. This distinction may not be important or relevant for your context or application, of course. e.
