On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:06:33PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:16:22PM +0100, toad wrote: > > It is a real problem because Brandon and others want to use highly > > descriptive > > human written metadata, for example the Dublin Core stuff includes several > > fuzzy > > fields. > > Well then Dublin Core or whatever should be treated as a different kind > of metadata, with a field pointing to the CHK of the data itself, or > even encourage people to distribute two CHKs pointing to the Dublin Core > stuff and the metadata. > > What it should *NOT* do is be treated as a *replacement* for the current > metadata mechanism which is working fine thanks very much.
I agree with Ian in my disliking for these ideas. There will always be different ways in which splitting the data up might help some parts coalesce more efficiently then if we weren't - trying to make a special system for "highly descriptive human written metadata" is kludgy and annoying.
