W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > September 2006

Re: Metadata (was: Re: Number, Date, Time, Quantity)

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:09:34 +0900
Message-Id: <C2E00E27-C0D1-43E6-A5B0-0BB5F823DB0D@w3.org>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <fora@annevankesteren.nl>


Le 8 sept. 06 à 16:59, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 09:48:43 +0200, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>  
> wrote:
>> Also, it seems to me that the core competence and point of  
>> differentiation of successful search engines is yielding useful  
>> results even in the absence of such explicit metadata.
>
> The other problem is of course that metadata can be incorrect and  
> if enough people add incorrect metadata it will be ignored again  
> (happened before to the <meta> element for instance).

Which stands true for any kind of semantics analysis

	* Full text: see spam assassin for mails
	* Explicit semantics being microformats, or RDFa or eRDF, or meta.

Then the argument doesn't hold much water. For example, for  
microformats, it is just because spammers haven't heard too much  
about it. There was a period of grace for wikis also a couple of  
years ago.

The thing is what value brings explicit metadata when we want to  
develop an application which relies on these. Full Text Search  
engines are hardly a target for these. There are plenty of  
application which can be develop in specific context.

book reviews, quotation analysis, network of trusted sites gathering  
information, etc etc

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Friday, 8 September 2006 09:11:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:07 GMT