The arguments generally go something like this: "Metadata is mostly read-only. Transactional data is written much more frequently. Metadata has different access patterns -- I don't even know what that means :).
I find that to be hogwash. That describes usage not kinds of data. I do not like categorizing data. It's like nominal typing - limits its broader viability and usability after the fact. Any data at any given time can be more like metadata or more like transactional data. For example:
- To an engineer, bill of materials is transactional data when designing a product. But, to a resource planner, the bill of materials is metadata that drives materials planning, purchasing and manufacturing scheduling.
- A web page is transactional data during development, but metadata at runtime (unless it is self-modifying code)
So, it just depends on the usage. Don't categorize the data, just understand the usage.
As for Oslo, I assert thatwe are building a broad set of capabilities to describe, validate, transform, access, and store data. Sure, Oslo's primary scenarios and our investments right now are targeted at data that describes runtimes. However, our ambitions are bigger, and our architecture and designs not limited or miopic in our thinking. If they are - please help us. After all, data is just data.