W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001


From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 13:20:43 -0700
Message-ID: <018601c0c6b2$be350d00$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
Cc: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>

>What does make
> sense is partitioning off applications of RDF, and embedding *them*. I
> agree that limiting ourselves to just Dublin Core would be silly, but
> it's a good a place to start as any.

I don't think we would make any useful progress by doing this a schema at a
time.  If RDF takes off, we should be knee deep in schemas within a couple
of years.   We want to make it very easy to start using a new schema.

Doesn't dan's suggestions in [1] point the way to avoid that?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Apr/0245.html

Let me see if I interperte it correctly:   If I write the page
I would could link my semantic description of the page with something like
the following valid markup?

<HEAD profile="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/StandardProfile/
  <TITLE>How to complete Memorandum cover sheets</TITLE>
  <META name="author" content="Seth Russell">
  <META name="keywords" content="something, anything, nothing">
  <META name="date" content="1994-11-06T08:49:37+00:00">
   <META name="authorDescibedRDF"
   <META name="authorDescibedN3"
   <META name="authorDescibedSEM"
   <META name="chiggy" content="something wierd that i just want to put here
for my own purposes">

And that the "authorDescribedXXX" attribute names would have been defined as
a standard for all to use and all agents to recognize, and my wierdProfile
would define "chiggy" for my own purposes ?

... or did i get this all twisted around again ...

Received on Monday, 16 April 2001 16:24:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:35 UTC