- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:50:05 +0100
- To: Jonathan Rees <jonathan.rees@gmail.com>
- CC: public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
>> Jonathan Rees wrote: > It would be nice if the process for getting metadata (and data!) for > resources identified by HTTP URIs were more systematic. The proposals > I've heard are all awful, but I think it's a good thing to work on. However, the clarity on the "process" of getting metadata/data actually depends on the clarification of what is data and what is metadata. For instance, LSID seems have made the process clear by giving different API for getting data and metadata. But does it help in reality? I guess not because if a software client gets back a metadata in an unknown format/language/encoding, it is still useless in spite of a "clearly defined process". I think, if we accept such a definition/convention that "metadata is in RDF and data is otherwise", the process for of getting metadata (and data) of a HTTP URI becomes automatically clear and content negotiation gives us the URI. Interestingly, when RDF was first developed some 8-9 year ago, it was intended for the framework of metadata. "The solution proposed here is to use /metadata/ to describe the data contained on the Web." (From the introduction of the 1999 recommendations). I wonder why W3C has abandoned such "phrasing", perhaps W3C intended to make RDF a more universal data model. Xiaoshu
Received on Friday, 13 July 2007 16:19:19 UTC