- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:06:38 +1000 (AEST)
- To: WAI HC Working Group <w3c-wai-hc@w3.org>
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Al Gilman wrote: > > The short answer is the RDF is intended to be used > > to identify resources and make assertions about > > what those resources are. So, you could say that > > a resource exists at a specific URL and that it > > is a "phonetic dictionary". Any application that > > wanted to find a phonetic dictionary would look > > at the list of resources identified and get that > > resource. > > > > Jason, is that concrete enough? Or should we try to > expand on this scenario to make it clear how it works? > Provided that RDF enables the dictionary resource to be described with sufficient flexibility, then I agree that it offers the best solution. RDF has not been mentioned in our previous discussions on this mailing list, and I was unaware of it until today. Is there a specification available? Returning to the immediate problem, what consequences would exploiting RDF have for the definition of a dictionary link type, or does RDF avoid the LINK element altogether? The main requirement is that it be possible to associate several descriptors with each resource, so that a dictionary could be described as containing, for example, both abbreviations and phonetic data, as exemplified in my earlier proposal. The HTML 4.0 specification already defines a number of link types, including glossary, index, contents, etc. Presumably at least some of these are likely to be superseded by RDF in any case. Is that right?
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 1997 19:06:45 UTC