W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > October 2005

Re: [ALL/MM] EMMA Last call

From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:44:37 +0200
Message-ID: <434143D5.5020002@cwi.nl>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, mf@w3.org

Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> Off top of my head, without having looked at document:
>
> RDF is useful when
>   - data is intended for Web publication
>   - or schema is open and extensible

Nice rule of thumb!

> If EMMA has a fully specified schema that does not need 
> application/implementation specific extensions, and the data is 
> transient and not intended for Web publication then RDF may have been 
> useful but I would not see a comment along the lines of "You should 
> have used RDF" as well-founded.

Yes, but that was only part of the discussion.  My suggestion was more 
or less along the line of

"If W3C publishes a language spec that is about metadata and annotation, 
it either should use RDF, or explain its relationship with RDF"

So I still think it would help if the EMMA spec would explain why RDF 
was not used, and how EMMA data could be transformed into RDF when needed.

Jacco

PS: I liked Max' arguments explaining why RDF was not used.  They partly 
address missing features in RDF (the ability to express and reason with 
uncertainty).
I also liked his example in 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-emma-20031218/#s2.1.3.2.
Note the use of xpointer.  This seems to be a good use case to allow 
literals as subjects, in which case you would not have needed the xpointer.
Comments?
Received on Monday, 3 October 2005 14:48:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:44 UTC