W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2007

XMP [Re: RDF: XULing or Grueling]

From: Tony Hammond <tony.hammond@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:34:44 +0100
Message-ID: <c107aff50710050834g751bf764t2b8950d441695141@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "SW-forum Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>

Hi Bijan:

> (I suppose XMP is still chugging, yes? Does creative commons still
> use RDF? Is anyone tracking these attempts over time and writing them
> up as case studies?)

Just to say that XMP is something we are still looking at in the STM
community. See these recent couple posts on CrossTech:

The Second Wave
http://www.crossref.org/CrossTech/2007/09/the_second_wave.html

"XMP has much in common with RSS 1.0. They are both profiles of
RDF/XML. They are both flawed in certain respects because of
self-imposed limitations. But they both build on a robust and open
data model for the web (RDF) and are reasonably open, at least they
are extensible."

XMP-Ville
http://www.crossref.org/CrossTech/2007/09/xmpville.html

"Been so busy looking into the technical details of XMP that I almost
forgot to check out the current landcsape. Luckily I chanced on these
articles by Ron Roszkiewicz for The Seybold Report (and apologies for
lifting the title of this post from his last)."

Further posts on XMP as I've gotten to grips with it are also posted here

http://www.crossref.org/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=4&search=xmp

Cheers,

Tony



On 10/4/07, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> http://www.jerf.org/resources/xblinjs/whyNotMozilla/notXulTemplates.html
> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20071004#%23l-543
>
> These days, I generally muck in the OWL end of things, as y'all might
> have noticed. However, I see these sorts of RDF bashing now and again
> and wonder. Several of the showcase applications of RDF from earlier
> in the 00s seem to have gone a bit bust leaving a bad taste in some
> folks mouth (RSS 1.0, XUL, I would say OWL's RDF syntax..certainly
> for me; I didn't *start out* disliking it in the DAML+OIL days; my
> own personal cross the WSDL RDF mapping).
>
> Now some of these may have had other factors as well (RSS 1.0 is an
> obvious example). But it's not clear to me that RSS 1.0 is such a
> great idea. If we could press a button and eliminate all the other
> flavors and Atom, or RDFize all of them, would we do so? Would it be
> a good idea?
>
> (I suppose XMP is still chugging, yes? Does creative commons still
> use RDF? Is anyone tracking these attempts over time and writing them
> up as case studies?)
>
> In my experience, several communities resented the injection of RDF
> "from above" (certainly that was a strong feeling in the WSDL group).
> Exposure made them more angry about it rather than less. This is not
> a happy thing. When I compare with things like JSON (which is
> popular) or YAML (which I think isn't nearly as popular...don't have
> anything more than my impression), they don't seem to arose the same
> sort of hostility, nor are they generally *imposed*. (Though
> interesting, in that same chat log there is a bit of discussion about
> why Hixie defined his own syntax for a manifest file instead of using
> JSON or even XML.)
>
> The linked data stuff seems harmless in that afaict it doesn't hork
> anyone off and seems sorta neat (though I've personally not read a
> lot of excitement about it from outside our community; pointers are
> welcome).
>
> Sorry to ramble: My question is whether we can or should come up with
> an analysis of these cases. Both the tactics of pushing adoption and
> the actual technological solutions. These don't feel like Clay
> Shirkleyesque confused naysaying, but some real issues. Maybe the
> issues are *all* idiosyncratic (e.g., perhaps mozilla's "bad" RDF
> implementation was to blame for the perceived problems...but then,
> why didn't any of us step up to the plate and fix it? did we not
> think this was an important evangelization opportunity?)
>
> GRDDL seems like a reasonable attempt to rehabilitate the hegemonic
> reputation of the RDF community. So that's potentially good. I'd be
> interested in some reflection about these cases (and others).
>
> BTW, this isn't meant as a nay-saying bit, but as a wanting to derive
> useful lessons from past experience. The above links *do* contain nay-
> saying, but I'm less interested in refuting that than understanding
> what drove it and if there is any way to do better.
>
> (Does SWEO do case studies where RDF "failed"? Or analyses of when
> RDF might not be the right choice?)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bijan.
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 15:34:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:18 GMT