On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Hank Ratzesberger <xml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> []
>
>  > But in so many instances, this is the pattern that makes XML such a
>  > good replacement for binary / proprietary files because the document
>  > becomes self-contained.  For example, when I worked with a
>  > seismologist  all the data is just time series points of
>  > acceleration.  Only until you add the instrument, sensitivity/scale,
>  > geo-location, can it be usefully integrated with other records for
>  > the same event.
>
>         JFTR, therere various binary formats doing essentially the same
>         (check, e. g., the varieties of HDF [1], prescribed by NASA for
>         EOS [2] missions), /and/ also that there /is/ a binary variety
>         of XML [3].  (Well, a format that is entirely isomorphic to XML,
>         yet built atop of a binary encoding, anyway.)
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_Data_Format
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Observing_System
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Infoset

Well, I agree that you don't want your metadata to stray to far from
your data. Good points.

For the context, for the metadata, I think XML has the advantage
because that is often human readable content.  There may be a
location or name that is in Cyrillic or an original comment in French.

--Hank