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


From: Phil Archer <phil.archer@icra.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 12:38:14 +0100
Message-ID: <008d01c47baa$92deaca0$61f46251@PHILXP>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

I agree that not everything can be put into RDF - bitmaps certainly and HTML
almost certainly being cases in point. But I'd be interested to learn if
anyone has considered trying to define an RDF schema for CSS?

(another) Phil.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Dawes" <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>
To: "Stephen Rhoads" <rhoadsnyc@mac.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: HTML in RDF

> 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
> 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.
> Cheers,
> Phil
Received on Friday, 6 August 2004 07:43:25 UTC

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