Re: metadata tags

Benno Blumenthal wrote:
> In the spirit of wouldn't-it-be-nice, I'll put out a request for a better 
> idea.
> I think we are missing the boat a bit with respect to the metadata tag, but I 
> am
> not sure of the solution.   Consider GCMD, for example.   You have included 
> as one of the metadata types, but from a client point-of-view, that is much 
> less
> than what can be done.
> Consider for example, HELLERMAN,  which is a GCMDID.   With that id, I can ask
> the GCMD for many versions of the metadata, including I suppose the DIF 
> document
> itsself (though offhand I do not know how to construct the URL to get the 
> DIF).
> Sample url (html):
> Obviously if I am writing an HTML client, the html version would be nice.  If 
> I
> am editing DIFs, I probably want the DIF version, etc.
> So are these different metadata?  Or are they metadata-services on the same
> metadata, i.e. I can get it translated by various servers?

So, not just multiple metadata items for each dataset or collection but rather a
hierarcy of metadata similar to the dataset hierarchy?

Three ways to accomplish this come to mind:
1) extend metadata elements to contain other metadata elements
or, better I think,
2) add an access-like element to the metadata element
or, a completely different approach,
3) add more meaning to the 'MetadataType' entity. I.e., include things like
'GCMD DIF', 'GCMD FGDC', etc. or in some other way make the entries more
hierarchical in nature.

Man, this just keeps getting more and more complicated. Maybe we should delay
this discussion until after 0.6 gets finalized (so we can actually get 0.6
finalized). Or is this important enough in the near term to pound away at now?


> Benno

Ethan R. Davis                       Telephone: (303) 497-8155
Software Engineer                    Fax:       (303) 497-8690
UCAR Unidata Program Center          E-mail:    edavis@xxxxxxxx
P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, CO  80307-3000