Re: What is source code?

In message <c6132d$aur$1_at_news.netins.net>, Dawn M. Wolthuis <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> writes
>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 name
>of a field, but not the name of a process? It would include specs about a
>field, but not specs related to a "virtual field"? or related to a virtual
>field and not to a subroutine to aggregate the information for the virtual
>field?
>
>Defining metadata as "data about data" doesn't narrow that down. I store
>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 about
>the data that describes data is called "metadata" too. A set of VIEWS --
>are those metadata?

It can narrow things down to define metadata as "data about data". Take the current level that you are manipulating. "data" is the stuff you are manipulating. "metadata" is the data that you don't manipulate but need in order to do the manipulation.

A dictionary is metadata when you are updating the table, but is data (and the dictionary of dictionaries is metadata) when you are updating the dictionary.

What's what when you update the dictionary of dictionaries is up for debate :-)
>
>This is a matter of definition, but I think a definition worth pursuing to
>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

Is self-reference a root concept :-)

Cheers,
Wol

-- 
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999