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

Re: [ALL/MM] EMMA Last call

From: Max Froumentin <mf@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:09:38 +0100
To: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <87ll1ar619.fsf@w3.org>

Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl> writes:

> 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.

That's good feedback for www-multimodal@w3.org

> 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?

We considered that in our discussions, until we hit the question about
how to represent an XML Literal as the subject of two triples.  As far
as I can tell, you have to copy the literal. And similarly if you want to
assign a property to one node of your XML and another one to a subnode
of it.

Max.
Received on Monday, 3 October 2005 15:08:53 UTC

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