Re: RDF Issues from MusicBrainz

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for this.  I'm sorry you couldn't stay for the full time.  The short
presentations did get squeezed into the last 45 mins or so of the meeting.

It does occur to me that it might be a good idea to tidy up the list from
the flip charts and any other contributions such as this folks would like
to make into a consolidated list.  To do that would require two actions:

  o folks who have knowledge of direct user experience with RDF, to
    summarize the top issues users had to the list - as Aaron has
    just done for MusicBrainz

  o someone to volunteer to make the summary

Brian


Aaron Swartz wrote:
> 
> I did not get to make a presentation on MusicBrainz at the F2F,
> however I did feel it was important that I share with you the
> top issues that Rob Kaye, the head of the MusicBrainz project,
> had while working with RDF:
> 
>   - Make RDF specs easier to understand
> 
>     The spec focuses too much on the serialization. The BNF directly
>     in the spec is useful, but really misleading. The focus of the spec
>     ought to be more on the graph that is created, rather than the
>     serialization of that graph.
> 
>   - Provide more guidelines for creating vocabularies
>         o What should be specified as part of a vocabulary?
>         o Provide a sample vocabulary!
>         o Should/must a vocabulary have an RDF Schema?
> 
>   - Provide a syntax that isn't as verbose
>         o It should also be more intuitive. I think Sergey Melnik's
>           approach seems reasonable:
>           (http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/syntax.html)
> 
>     - Do you have any tips on how to write a vocabulary spec
>       for inclusion into IETF spec? Drew Streib @ freedb wants to use
>       MM for CD lookups and he wants to push this through the IETF.
>       Has this been done before for an RDF vocab?
> 
> --
> [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]

Received on Sunday, 5 August 2001 07:44:50 UTC