W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2002

Re: The Tragedy of RSS

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 20:01:30 +0100
To: MDaconta@aol.com
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <15553.1033930890@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>MDaconta@aol.com said:
> I respectfully disagree.  Here is a quote from the document "Using 
> Dublin Core" at 
> http://www.dublincore.org/documents/2001/04/12/usageguide/.

> ... 

> Your email seems to contend that Dublin Core has some special "tie" to
> RDF.  By "ties" I do not mean influence or contribution, I mean dependence
> and exclusivity.  So, what is the dependence of DC on RDF?  
> More below...

DC and RDF are both interested in inclusivity and independence - the
terms and standards are mixable, you can add your own stuff and do it
your own way with our without each other.  There is no rigidity -
that is one of the many principles of the web that were taken on by DC
and RDF.  This might be of interest: 
  Digital Libraries and the Semantic Web, Eric Miller
  http://www.w3.org/2001/09/06-ecdl/

> It is obvious that the DC elements can be RDF predicates about Resources.
> But you still have not proven that they are *more useful* in RDF than 
> in XML.  That is the key issue.

Prove what?  You are mixing layers in a way that makes no sense to
me; asking why terms in a model (the dc elements) are "more useful"
than a syntax (XML).  That's like asking to prove why the 'From:'
email header is more useful than ASCII.  Because it there is more
meaning?

You can read up on the real history of DC and RDF in many places.
Try google, the papers from the DC workshops from 1997/1998 or the
RDF M&S recommendation document (1998) and see the names of people
from the DC/digital library community who worked on the RDF
specifications.

Cheers

Dave
Received on Sunday, 6 October 2002 15:03:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:56 GMT