My last note on RE: definition of "meta"

[Jul,Erik]

> Wilfred Drew [SMTP:drewwe at MORRISVILLE.EDU]  asked:
> 
>  What is wrong with the simple definition [of metadata] :
> 
> data about data
> 
	[Jul,Erik]  

	Nothing at all.

> I don't remember where I heard it.  While interesting, this discussion
> about semantics is circular and may be non-productive.
> 
	[Jul,Erik]  

	It's productive only if it helps us understand.  The better each
of us understands, the more confidently we can use the word "metadata"
in our speech and writing, and the better we collectively understand,
the greater the currency of the word and a conveyor of meaning.

	As this discussion has teased out, there are multiple
definitions of "metadata," and some of them are founded on assertions
that do not bear up under scrutiny.  While linguistic scholarship may
not be our goal, at least we should seek to avoid error, especially when
clarification is at hand.  This seems desirable even if we do not
achieve the ideal of unequivocal, unambiguous common understanding (or,
as one metadata architect I know might say, "semantic
interoperability").

	--Erik

	Erik Jul
	jul at oclc.org