Rename `metadata` to `package`?

[lwjohnst86]

Since metadata could also be about the data for Propagate (e.g. the internal structs). So maybe to make it clearer it is the package e.g. read_package(). We already name the struct Package, not Metadata, so we would be aligning on that.

[joelostblom]

Hmm, personally I find that package is more general than metadata and therefore could mean more different things. If the goal is to clarify which metadata is being referred to, isn't a prefixed a cleaner solution? E.g. if we think data_package_metadata is too long, how about dp_metadata?

As a more general point: Did I miss a discussion about why we decided to go with metadata internally in this repo instead of properties which we use internally in sprout, flower, and soil? While I personally thing metadata easier to understand than properties like I mentioned previously, I value consistency with those other repo higher unless we are intentionally trying to make a distinction from what properties is referring to internally in sprout, flower, and soil.

[lwjohnst86]

We don't use properties in Flower in public facing things, we call it metadata. Flower was the start of switching to metadata, since properties is a very Data Package thing and we wanted to be more generic and a bit more precise (and use a term that is more commonly used).

[lwjohnst86]

And yea, maybe read_package_metadata is fine. 👍

[lwjohnst86]

But we still call it Package for the struct, so 🤔 🤔 this isn't urgent, we can think about it more.

[DanMazJen]

Looking at the function named read_package(), I would be unsure whether it would read all aspects of the package or only the metadata. Therefore, I think read_package_metadata() is clearer. A package may require more read functions in order to open all its content e.g., reading the resources – read_package_resource() – although that function will be in another program.