- From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
- Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:44:37 +0200
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, mf@w3.org
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > Off top of my head, without having looked at document: > > RDF is useful when > - data is intended for Web publication > - or schema is open and extensible Nice rule of thumb! > If EMMA has a fully specified schema that does not need > application/implementation specific extensions, and the data is > transient and not intended for Web publication then RDF may have been > useful but I would not see a comment along the lines of "You should > have used RDF" as well-founded. Yes, but that was only part of the discussion. My suggestion was more or less along the line of "If W3C publishes a language spec that is about metadata and annotation, it either should use RDF, or explain its relationship with RDF" So I still think it would help if the EMMA spec would explain why RDF was not used, and how EMMA data could be transformed into RDF when needed. Jacco PS: I liked Max' arguments explaining why RDF was not used. They partly address missing features in RDF (the ability to express and reason with uncertainty). I also liked his example in http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-emma-20031218/#s2.1.3.2. Note the use of xpointer. This seems to be a good use case to allow literals as subjects, in which case you would not have needed the xpointer. Comments?
Received on Monday, 3 October 2005 14:48:42 UTC