Knowledge Architecture MetaData@ReachingOutKnowledgeFramework
Homage to Sir Tim Berners-Lee`s article - Axioms of Web Architecture: Metadata from January 6, 1997.
Article Status 1997: Sir Berners-Lee's personal view, but corresponds generally to the W3C architecture for metadata
Status 2017: Ofer Erez`s Intellectual Remix of Sir Tim Berners-Lee`s article - Axioms of Web Architecture: Metadata through juggling of Thematic Paraphrase for conceptualisation of the ReachingOut Framework. I do this in order to express my assertions regarding Knowledge Architecture and Academic Power Relations, meaning my personal view composed in nice words.
Fear not, this text corresponds generally to the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary definitions of Metadata, Knowledge, Framework and all the other terms used.
At the end, there are additional humorous statements about the meaning of consistency and coherence in label/metaset/collection syntax, semantics and their desirable/alleged relationship to declarative written statements and detectable recognized human behavior.
The syntaxes used in this document are meant to illustrate the architecture, and will hopefully be based upon clear academic phrases and known academic definitions.
This document was written while under pressure and uncertainty due to the OIA Investigation of my complaint against Derby University U.K. This document is an introduction to the fundamental ideas of Data Architecture and MetaData(theory) within the ReachingOut Knowledge Framework. This document introduces the above concepts using the comprehensive timeline of “Communicative” Correspondence, which comprises the sequence events between us (myself, Anat Ben Salmon, Dr Anna Cristal-Lilov) and the University. One of the first natural applications derived of the timeline of correspondence between us and Derby University U.K., is the possibility to derive universal meanings and reach common agreement about semantic understanding of textual statements. Universal semantic understanding is based upon extracted metadata which is linked to the text and elevates personal interpretation into generalised semantics.
Documents, Metadata, and Links
The thing which you get when you follow a Link, when I Reference, a Statement, has a lot of names. Formally we call it an Evidence. Sometimes it is referred to as a Document, because many of the things currently on the Web are human readable documents. Sometimes it is referred to as an Image, when the Image is something which is more human comprehensible in nature or has imbedded meaning or hidden Paradox. I will use the words Documents and Evidence interchangeably in what follows and sometimes may slip into using Image for Illustration.
Information, about information is generally known as Metadata, and is extracted newborn Knowledge. An example of extracted newborn Metadata Knowledge is the coherent evidence retrieved through a hyperlink within a text document. Evidence doesn’t stand simply by itself without an Explanation,/Interpretation, which provides additional information about the Evidence and the author-transmitters position and the way he related to the information. Without evidence there is no meaningful Metadata and the statements which are derived out of the information, is at risk of being false, biased, explanation or interpretation which are mis-represented as knowledge.
Metadata (or interpretations) is information understandable by Humans about Data, Evidence or an Object, and provides the meaning of the Object/Data/Evidence in the wider Human understandable context. The phrase "Human understandable" is the key. We are providing the source of information, the Object/Data/Evidence, adding metadata/interpretive information to it, all of which the human agent can detect, assess and use to form an understanding. On doing so, the human agent can draw conclusions from his understanding and take action. The Metadata/interpretations information defines the meaning of the Object/Data/Evidence and adds embedded evaluation for the purpose of action feasibility.
The transfer of information from provider to retriever is defined as Human Understanding, when the action derived from the transfer of information ensures coherency with both the provider instructions and the principles retrieved. The Evidence, labels which statements we can trust, and directs our progress toward conclusions and actions. When Metadata/interpretations has well defined semantics (links) and complies with basic rules of logic in its reasoning structure, everything works smoothly and rapidly. Metadata was given this name because its informative statements are based upon the Data. Information about Evidence, serves as Data about the Object/Data/Evidence. A statement without supporting evidence is bad a Aggregate, for future knowledge construction. In the future, the metadata extraction engines and processes of theme extraction will develop, and form a strong basis for all Human understandable information about anything and everything, people, things, concepts and ideas.
We keep this fact in our minds while designing future knowledge architecture, and the first step is to construct systemic definitive metadata information about Data/Evidence. Knowledge is a cornerstone for the Management of an Ethical and Informed Decision Making Process.
When an Object/Data/Evidence is presented together with the metadata/interpretive extraction protocol, the Interpretation adds background information about timing, duration, responsibility, and other arbitrary information thus situating the Object/Data/Evidence in a wider context. This metadata provides the background information for the data and improves understanding. In that sense knowledge can be described as world of Data, Objects, Evidence and metadata. Composing a few Metadata axioms will enable creation of a coherent picture.
The first axiom is that metadata/interpretation is data. That is to say, information about data is to be counted in all respects as information. There are various parts of this. One is that metadata can be regarded as data, and can be stored in a resource. So, one resource may contain information about itself or about another resource. In current practice on the World Wide Web there are three ways to obtain metadata. The first is the data about a document contained within the document itself. The second is that during the document transfer, the server transfers some metadata to the client about the object which is being transferred. Who is making the statement? When did he make it? Where is it directing us? What are the pro/con’s? Whose property is the metadata? The third way is when metadata is found in references to other documents (connected by a Link). This practice has not been very common until we observed the inaccuracy of references by figures in managerial positions when they attempted to misrepresent evidence in alleged rules and regulations. The improved linked architecture directs us specifically to resources proving the accuracy of statements. This evidence is located within the resource itself, and can be retrieved as a separate resource, and can be passed over during knowledge transfer. Metadata about one document can occur within the document, or within a separate document, and it may be transferred as an accompanying document, connected by hyperlinks. Put another way, metadata can be a first class object. The second part of the above axiom is: Metadata can describe metadata, That is, metadata itself may have attributes such as ownership and an expiry date, and so meta-metadata exists. However, we don't distinguish between these many levels, and just say that metadata is data and what follows is that it can have other data about itself.
To conclude, in the future, no Human will be able to use his regulatory position to present allegedly “Regulated Knowledge”, and use it as an aggregate for refueling his personal aspiration for domination and power relations. Without providing links to Data/Evidence, no knowledge exists, and without knowledge the human decision making process reflects no more than power relations and pure personal interest. In my research, I learnt how to use the timeline of correspondence to understand the writer's’ intentions from his text, how he wants to make the reader feel and how he wants him to react. The contradiction between a person’s statements and his behaviour becomes evident only when reading a timeline of events and correspondence, e.g. When a person states that he wants to help but his actions display behaviour which impedes progress, this exposes his negative intentions and suggestions. The metadata within the timeline provides a certain consistency, elevating it closer to the truth and it is no longer merely another post-modernistic opinion.