W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > April 1997

Linking to styles with PICS?

From: Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 07:42:40 -0700
Message-Id: <199704251442.HAA17267@bolt.sonic.net>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org

It appears there is another W3C effort that may be related to
issues raised here, but the relevant document(s?) are not available
publicly.  Could the SGML ERB or someone else from an organization
that is a W3C member take a look and see whether PICs-ng's notion
of wrappers is useful to XML?

Regards, Terry

From owner-meta2@mrrl.lut.ac.uk Fri Apr 25 07:15:37 1997
Received: from gizmo.lut.ac.uk (root@gizmo.lut.ac.uk [158.125.96.46]) by sub.sonic.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA07928 for <tallen@sonic.net>; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 07:15:33 -0700
Received: from majordom by gizmo.lut.ac.uk with local (Exim 1.61 #1)
	id 0wKjcl-0004N7-00; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:57:11 +0100
Received: from oclc.org [132.174.19.11] 
	by gizmo.lut.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.61 #1)
	id 0wKjbp-0004Mu-00; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:56:19 +0100
Received: from orc.NISOR (orc.dev.oclc.org) by oclc.org (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA18041; Fri, 25 Apr 97 07:52:10 EDT
Received: by orc.NISOR (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id HAA25686; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 07:52:03 -0400
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 07:52:03 -0400
From: weibel@oclc.org (Stu Weibel)
Message-Id: <199704251152.HAA25686@orc.NISOR>
To: weibel@oclc.org, advax@Triumf.CA
Subject: Re: HTML Metadata for other Web objects
Cc: search@mail.mccmedia.com, meta2@mrrl.lut.ac.uk, www-html@w3.org
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Sender: owner-meta2@mrrl.lut.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Status: R


As I have said earlier, the PICS 1.1 label facility is not of interest
to the metadata community.

The PICS-ng specification (which is not, as far as I know, now
available publically, in that it is being discussed by the working
group) will allow strings, substructure, qualifiers, and repeatable
elements.

Further, there are 4 association models of PICS metadata and resources:

   1. meta embedded in the resource header.  

      easy, requires no additional infrastructure, and readily
      harvestable, but perhaps not the best model for efficiency
      (bloated headers) and maintainability (keeping metadata
      consistent as resources are mirrored or copied will be a problem).

   2. resource embedded in a metadata wrapper.

      a useful model for wrapping images, for example.  same advantages 
      and disadvantages as #1

   3. coupled metadata

      metadata is tightly coupled to the resource, may travel with it, but
      is not embedded and can be handled as an object in its own right

   4. third party metadata

      metadata is linked to the resource by reference only; may or may
      not be created, maintained, distributed by the manager of the
      resource itself.  requires additional infrastructure (eg.
      database management tools)

      this is the model that third party rating providers (label
      bureaus) will be based on, but it is also the model for
      distributed resource cataloging that already predominates in the
      library world.


  Models 2,3, and 4 could be applied to non-html objects

stu


      
Received on Friday, 25 April 1997 10:40:31 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:04:25 EDT