3 ms·
I'm not entirely sure the author himself understands the difference between data and metadata. It has nothing to do with importance; rather metadata is "data ab
by jzdziarski 17y ago
I'm not entirely sure the author himself understands the difference between data and metadata. It has nothing to do with importance; rather metadata is "data about data". The author seems to think it's got something to do with a distinction between system and user data, which isn't the case. It's an important logical abstraction to make, as "data" is a noun, whereas metadata can be thought of as a collection of adjectives.
Now if you want to start discussing why "data about data" should be considered part of the data itself, that's an argument we can have... but that doesn't appear to be the goal of this article (at least if it is, he doesn't make much of an argument on that level).
- gruseom 17y agoHuh? He knows perfectly well what the definition of "metadata" is. It's not that hard a concept. Nor is it hard to see why it's muddled, or why systems that make an architectural distinction between the two (data and metadata) are clumsy and rigid. In fact, the whole point is rather obvious (or ought to be), but he makes up for it by offering specific insights. I thought the historical speculation was particularly good.