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

Please forgive any repeat-postings.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: love26@gorge.net [mailto:love26@gorge.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 2:00 PM
> To: Craig Pugsley; 'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'; w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
> Subject: 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. 

OK, I see your point. We could never say that HTML has fallen, this is not
what I meant (even if its what I wrote). Turn-of-phrase problem. Apologies.

> 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.

Yes. I agree with what I gather you're saying. I'm not having a go at HTML
for being too constrictive. The angle I'm coming from is that we need to
ensure that whatever communication medium is used (HTML>XML>RDF - for
example) is kept away from the people who are going to have to work with it.

> 
> What *is* is awfully good! 

It works. But my understanding is that HTML was not originally designed
primarily to be a presenation-based language. Rather a way to communicate
metadata.

> 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? 

Yes, this should be entirely possible. Using whatever web design package
they use, they should be able to graphically drag and drop entities
representing resources to describe their site. It should be that simple.

> 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?

My sentiments exactly. Let's get working!

> 
>  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.

Not a bad idea. So long as tagging this "level of accessibility" assertion
and validity test can be easily included in the metadata design.

> 
> --
> Love.
>                  ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
> 

Thanks for your comments.

CraigP
Research
Content Technologies


******************************************************************************************
Baltimore Technologies, the market leader in e-security has acquired 
Content Technologies, the market leader in Content Security.  For more
information visit http://www.mimesweeper.com/ct/default.asp, or 
http://www.baltimore.com/ct/faq.html
******************************************************************************************
This e-mail and any files transmitted are confidential and intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.  
If you have received this e-mail in error, please call +44 (0) 118 930 1300.

MAILsweeper, a MIMEsweeper family product, has scanned this message
for e-mail content security threats. Be sure your organization is free from 
e-mail and web content security threats. For information on policy-based 
content security please visit: http://www.mimesweeper.com

Tel: +44 (0) 118 930 1300		Fax: +44 (0) 118 930 1301
E-mail: info@mimesweeper.com	Support: msw.support@mimesweeper.com
Web: http://www.mimesweeper.com	Web: http://www.baltimore.com

MIMEsweeper: Policy-based Content Security
******************************************************************************************

Received on Monday, 6 November 2000 09:27:24 UTC