- From: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:29:12 -0400
- To: Tony Hammond <tony.hammond@gmail.com>
- CC: SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Tony Hammond wrote: ... > I agree with Bruce that the RDF is crippled. (If I know it's a > resource, then why can't I say it's a resource? Because the XMP > metadata schema says it must be a literal or a group - Bag/Alt/Seq - > of literals, or this, or that.) Otoh, if the intent is to simplify > the RDF profile (for easy UI generation or whatever) then why not go > all the way and lock down to something that can be validated with a > DTD or schema? Be careful what you wish for :-) Adobe has talked about "something that can be validated with a DTD or schema" but that would be a non-RDF XML representation of the current XMP model; what they were calling "Plain XMP." Adobe engineer Alan Lillich talked about a lot of this on the ODF list while back: <http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200512/msg00009.html> > I think this (the broken RDF) is by far the lesser problem. Adobe > won't really be interested until this thing is out there in general > use. Though it would appear that they would rather keep it for > read/write by Adobe apps which does kind of circumscribe its world > somewhat. Hence any pressure to change or otherwise revise is minimal > and negligible. > > So, maybe the thing is a dodo. A great big white elephant. Can't > write, won't read. But still it's the only game in town for including > arbitrary metadata into media files that I'm aware of. Pity the > semweb community is not really interested. Embedded RDF a la XMP could add a lot of real value to a lot of desktop and next-generation desktop/web scenarios. Is there really not much interest in this?? Bruce
Received on Monday, 8 October 2007 12:29:28 UTC