[Sigia-l] Re: bias and ambigious metadata

[Derek R]

>| maybe bias *adds* value to
>| ambiguous metadata, instead of
>| detracting value as often assumed

Of course it adds value -- marketing value. 

But are we really ready to turn the WWW into one big advertising-flyer ?
(i.e. Sale!! Sale!! Sale!! Underwear!! Underwear!! Underwear!! Buy!!!
Buy!!! Buy!!! ~ what a lovely bias/marketing)

Besides, meta-anything is already bias -->
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=meta
(connected to because following things)

Meta-anything is already a marketing technique (by doubling-up).


>| anyone have pointers to ...
>| wisdom or research about the 
>| dynamics between bias and metadata? 

To begin with, if you *present* soundly and intelligently -- meaning
semantic presentation -- then content is already syntactically organized
(i.e. <h1>,<h2>, etc..) and usage/rhetoric is inherent.

The great problem with 'meta'-anything is it reductionist -- that it is
*not* used (no usage, not part of the rhetoric). 'Meta' is a 2nd-order
discourse about a first-order discourse, in other words, it is 'removed'
from the particular to the general.

For our purposes, in the age of computers, we can afford to make
mega-super-XX-trillion calculations per second, so there exists an
opportunity to release and leave behind this *generalization to system*
(meta) and *deal with* particulars exclusively -- made even more
possible with smart, intelligent and sound, well-defined  content
(semantic-markup ... <h1>,<h2>, even XML, etc..).

'Meta' supporters need to examine how far things can be, or ought to be,
*systematized* as the most important question.

Nevertheless, I do agree presentation of only *singular* statements
without suggesting the more general impinges upon aesthetics. There will
always be 'normative considerations,' but I think intelligently
presented, distinctive and precisely-marked (i.e. semantically-ordered)
content, achieves a 'structuring structure' without secondary
(2nd-order) parochial attitudes.

Treating things as if they are of the same order (meta-generalizations)
is liable to *lump together* diverse sorts of inquiry. Sorting them out
is extremely important because it clarifies the scope and limits of each
inquiry in given contexts ('field definition').


I see semantic mark-up providing all these things:

1) Description (actual content or semantically-appropriate excerpt
thereof)

2) Interpretation/Context (syntactic construction or 'unpacking of
meaning' -- motive)

3) Evaluation (comparative analysis of semantically-appropriate content)


Of course, all 3 of the above things are closely integrated and even
similar to 'meta.' But the advantage of semantics is that it removes
*truth* from the equation so that things are analyzed as neither 'true'
or 'false,' whereas the 'meta' addition seeks to answer that question,
ultimately resigned to referentially 'making its case' for or against
(marketing), in order to correct (redirect) original concern. Semantics
*present* without elaboration.

This meta 'case making' (marketing) has no logical bearing on the
content itself but attempts to be a relation of the *reader's beliefs.*
'Meta' does not operate. 

________________________
So basically everyone needs to go back to language/grammar-school :-)
Digital/electronic information is *structured* information -- inherently
-- so that even the world's worst presenter of language is bound to a
sequence of 1's and 0's, which can be analyzed and compared to find
relation. Let's make those relations as sound and intelligent as
possible (communicative) instead of giving ourselves over to 'big
brother' (antecedent condition) *meta* presuppositions
(systematic/prescriptivist classifications).