Re: What is source code?
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:19:45 -0500
"Alan" <alan_at_erols.com> wrote in message
> You can theorize till the cows come home. Here is one dictionary
> Subject: [wsdm][UPlat] Metadata Definition from Dictionary.com
> <data> /me't*-day`t*/, or combinations of /may'-/ or
> (Commonwealth) /mee'-/; /-dah`t*/ (Or "meta data") Data about
> data. In data processing, meta-data is definitional data
> that provides information about or documentation of other data
> managed within an application or environment.
> For example, meta-data would document data about data
> elements or attributes, (name, size, data type, etc) and
> data about records or data structures (length, fields,
> columns, etc) and data about data (where it is located, how it
> is associated, ownership, etc.). Meta-data may include
> descriptive information about the context, quality and
> condition, or characteristics of the data.
and from this definition can you deduce whether source code is metadata or not? --dawn
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> > "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:WLWdnRkGdfEknR3d4p2dnA_at_comcast.com...
> > > In another topic, the question got raised whether source code is
> > >
> > > There is a way in which source code might be considered "metaprocess".
> > > tells the compiler what to do, in order that the compiler will tell
> > > target machine what to do.
> > One can have metadata about processes as well as about data attributes,
> > right? The info that an IDE collects in order to generate classes -
> > you call that? What do you call a constraint placed on a data field?
> > if that constraint is specified to a Java compiler instead of a
> > RDBMS compiler or interpreter?
> > If metadata is only about data attributes for persistent data, then that
> > seems like a very narrow definition, but I prefer a narrow definition to
> > none. So, if we were to enumerate some metadata, it would include the
> > of a field, but not the name of a process? It would include specs about
> > field, but not specs related to a "virtual field"? or related to a
> > field and not to a subroutine to aggregate the information for the
> > field?
> > Defining metadata as "data about data" doesn't narrow that down. I
> > all code as "data" -- it isn't any less data than a set of digital films
> > would be, right? Metadata is also data. That is why typically data
> > the data that describes data is called "metadata" too. A set of
> > are those metadata?
> > This is a matter of definition, but I think a definition worth pursuing
> > get some common use of it. If source code is not metadata, is there a
> > super-type for source code or is it a root concept? --dawn
Received on Mon Apr 19 2004 - 22:19:45 CEST