Specify approach for resource meta-data

[justinwb]

We need to specify the approach for meta-data associated with a given resource (document or container), understanding that there is already a variety of metadata to account for today, and a need to be able to support new forms of metadata in a standardized way over time.

Examples of meta-data include (but are not limited to) wac permissions, shape validations, and audit history. Meta-data should apply to both RDF and non-RDF resources. Meta-data should be fully portable. Meta-data should be tied to the lifecycle of the resource. Meta-data should have a coherent mechanism for authorized access.

There are several issues that are directly or tangentially related to this, including #63, #65, #58. Creating this one issue as an overarching place to track them across the board.

[kjetilk]

Yeah, I can see the importance of this. I just don't think we are able to spec this for the Dec 19 release beyond what's in #63. So, I'm taken #63 to be about specing the .meta as it is currently implemented properly to be an existing feature, whereas the more general view that you propose that addresses more generic use cases, like linking to shape constraints and stuff, to be a new feature that we need to deal with later.

[justinwb]

Can we compromise on the March milestone? I believe we can submit a candidate proposal by the end of the year.

OK, you've got it! :-)

[kjetilk]

What?! I edited your comment, @justinwb ... That was not the intention, I didn't know I could... Anyway, We can make that compromise.

[justinwb]

What?! I edited your comment, @justinwb ... That was not the intention, I didn't know I could... Anyway, We can make that compromise.

lol i don't think i've seen that before - but that sounds good to me!