Re: And that was different than Resource fork/extended attributes how?
I never quite understood how WinFS was different than, say, extended attributes in ext or XFS or ... , or different than the resource fork in the older Mac file systems.
Well, for one thing, WinFS included schemas. Part of the idea with WinFS was to provide some metadata for that metadata, so the metadata would be applied consistently, and applications wouldn't have to have a bunch of special rules for every file format invented by every programmer.
Beyond that, WinFS was built on RDBMS underpinnings and so would, in theory, have included database features like ACID processing, journals for recovery processing, etc.
Note that OS/2 had extended attributes long before ext2 was a gleam in Card's eye. Windows NT inherited EA support for FAT and HPFS filesystems from OS/2, and for NTFS (which is what essentially all Windows systems use now), they're supported via alternate streams, which is a more general alternative to both EAs and the Mac OS resource-fork feature. So Windows already had the equivalent to both the resource fork and extended attributes when WinFS was announced, and indeed had them for most or all of the Project Cairo timeframe (depending on how exacting you want to be about specifics).
So the WinFS team already knew all about simple metadata attachment. Microsoft has long used alternate streams for things like extended file properties - the feature that lets Explorer show the title of an Office document, for example. They were building something quite different.
 Or schemata, if you prefer.