W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2007

Re: XMP [Re: RDF: XULing or Grueling]

From: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:29:12 -0400
Message-ID: <470A2298.7050808@gmail.com>
To: Tony Hammond <tony.hammond@gmail.com>
CC: SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

Tony Hammond wrote:


 > I agree with Bruce that the RDF is crippled. (If I know it's a
 > resource, then why can't I say it's a resource? Because the XMP
 > metadata schema says it must be a literal or a group - Bag/Alt/Seq -
 > of literals, or this, or that.) Otoh, if the intent is to simplify
 > the RDF profile (for easy UI generation or whatever) then why not go
 > all the way and lock down to something that can be validated with a
 > DTD or schema?

Be careful what you wish for :-)

Adobe has talked about "something that can be validated with a DTD or 
schema" but that would be a non-RDF XML representation of the current 
XMP model; what they were calling "Plain XMP."

Adobe engineer Alan Lillich talked about a lot of this on the ODF list 
while back:


 > I think this (the broken RDF) is by far the lesser problem. Adobe
 > won't really be interested until this thing is out there in general
 > use. Though it would appear that they would rather keep it for
 > read/write by Adobe apps which does kind of circumscribe its world
 > somewhat. Hence any pressure to change or otherwise revise is minimal
 >  and negligible.
 > So, maybe the thing is a dodo. A great big white elephant. Can't
 > write, won't read. But still it's the only game in town for including
 >  arbitrary metadata into media files that I'm aware of. Pity the
 > semweb community is not really interested.

Embedded RDF a la XMP could add a lot of real value to a lot of desktop 
and next-generation desktop/web scenarios. Is there really not much 
interest in this??

Received on Monday, 8 October 2007 12:29:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:03 UTC