Re: More On the Semantic Web (or: is RDF any good?)

At 12:09 PM 11/6/00 +0000, Craig Pugsley wrote:
>rise and fall of HTML, from its initial incarnation to the 
>presentational-emphasis language we have today.

Just to pick a nit: HTML (now XHTML) did indeed rise but IMO it has not 
"fallen" - in fact it's arguably rampant. Although its uses are often 
"presentationally emphatic" it's arguably unfair to blame that on the 
language, more on those who speak it in a certain way. The Web as a 
top-down entertainment medium hasn't reduced its effectiveness as an 
interactive communication medium. We may deplore (or not!) the fact that 
porn sites work better (in the sense of load fast, utilize whizbangery 
well, etc.) and proliferate much, but it's also true that there's more for 
any/each/all of us in whatever field than was ever dreamt even by Tim when 
he was sitting over in the corner at a little card table at some 
other-directed conference.

What *is* is awfully good! What can be is why this thread/list are attractive.

To focus on one point: is it possible to make a module that enables a Web 
author to include RDF "stuff" that tells the "who/when/how" of a Web 
presence and even the "what/why" thereof. Particularly in XHTML? If it's 
impossible, this whole exercise is indeed sound/fury signifying damn 
little, if not nothing. If it's possible (and I don't mean only by 
geek/nerd/prop-heads) then what's the delay in having such an option (or 
even requirement?) that could be used in as prolific a situation as a word 
processors "save as HTML", not to mention every *real* authoring tool?

 From my POV as a member of five WAI WGs I would also lobby for the ability 
for an author to make an assertion about the level of accessiblity 
conformance in some more useful way than merely putting a W3C/WAI logo at 
the bottom of the last page. Same for validity tests. If this can be done 
then is it worthwhile; if not then again we may be "signifyin'" but it's 
not significant.

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Monday, 6 November 2000 08:58:17 UTC