W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2004


From: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sf.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 12:20:48 +0000
Message-ID: <16659.30624.611784.655527@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Stephen Rhoads <rhoadsnyc@mac.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Hi Stephen,

Stephen Rhoads writes:
 > Has it occurred to anyone else that perhaps "RDF in HTML" is the wrong approach, and that what is really needed is "HTML in RDF"?
 > The idea would be to build an OWL ontology to describe the elements and layout of HTML documents so that the images, text and other elements could be "annotated" (for lack of a more profound word) directly.
 > Would certainly help to kickstart the adoption of the Semantic Web protocols.

I might be missing something, but this sounds like a bad idea to
me. XML/HTML is good for documents because of its implicit
ordering. RDF doesnt have this, and so will require a lots of explicit
information to describe the order.

Many people don't like RSS1.0 because of the RDF 'tax' it imposes on the
XML. Imagine what they'd say to the idea of replacing xml with lots of
RDF! Especially if the delivery format was RDF/XML :-)

Whenever I have the 'everything in RDF' idea, I try to think of
e.g. bitmap images, and realise that some things will probably always
be held in a non-rdf format.


Received on Friday, 6 August 2004 07:28:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:52 UTC