W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: DC.language Re: January 14 Minutes

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:48:14 -0500 (EST)
To: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
cc: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0202010539180.28396-100000@tux.w3.org>
Hmm. This isn't the forum to ensure that happens, but my personal perspective
on this is that it is unlikely to happen. HTML/XML and Dublin Core are used
primarily in different ways. There are some overlaps, because there are some
features that are useful in both situations. But generally developers say
things like "why should I have to parse Dublin Core information in RDF when I
am really only trying to find the language of the document that my XML
browser is presenting?", or "having to look inside a document for one piece
of metadata tat I need for cataloguing, and build a seperate parser to do so,
is precisely what we wanted to avoid by using Dublin Core".

If you are suggesting that IBM would generally prefer to have the ability to
parse both types of information, or that this is what you recommend to them,
and believe that you could get some reasonable level of industry buy-in, then
I would suggest going with the metadata solution as the preferred one.

However, I think that is unlikely, and that in order to support the different
use cases without requiring everyone to build massive pieces of software it
is more useful to produce the two redundant forms.

Just to illustrate, let me take an example where things are much closer
together already. In EARL, each statement (or grop of statements) must
include the date of the statement. If EARL is stored as an annotea
annotation, then part of the informationthat the annotea system includes is a
date.

Both pieces of information are RDF, of type Date. It is an open question
whether to make earl:date a type of dc:date or not - many implementors do not
want to have to import the entire dublin core namespace as that requires
extra features on their parsers. (Here, I think that people will settle for
opening the namespace - particularly if we harmonise the work on
DC.accessibility and earl soon enough...)

just my 2c worth.

chaals

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Phill Jenkins wrote:

  > "... can readily include both"

  of course they "could", but they currently don't.  Before asking all the
  tool vendors to support yet another standard, perhaps w3c, DC, etc
  standards folks could get their redundancies removed?

  Regards,
  Phill Jenkins,  (512) 838-4517
  IBM Research Division - Accessibility Center
  11501 Burnet Rd,  Austin TX  78758    http://www.ibm.com/able


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 05:48:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:47 UTC