- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:28:49 +0100
- To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
- Cc: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Seth:- > I think if you look at RDF as markup, you miss the > point of RDF. It might be useful at this point to make a distinction between metadata tagsets, and data tagsets... this is a distinction that I have rarely been fully happy with, but as time goes on I am becoming more enamoured with it:- [[[ Data-oriented: Tagsets for: UI (User Interface) oriented structural textual rendering (e.g. Docbook, HTML, MenuML, OEB), specialized rendering (e.g. MathML, SVG - Scalable Vector Graphics, MusicML, SMIL - Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language), or any generic data storage format. An informal definition is 'anything for which the question "is there a textual equivalent of all rich media data bits" makes sense'. Metadata-oriented: When the content being marked up is metadata. Examples: For expressing data processing (e.g. XSL - Extensible Style Language), RDF (Resource Description Framework), Schema languages, etc. - http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/xmlgl Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:44:37 UTC ]]] Because RDF is intended for machine processing, rather than delivering it to a client, we get mixed up when it is used in a generic data tagset, i.e. XHTML. In other words, it's the old "embredding XML into XHTML" problem - it doesn't make all that much sense. What does make sense is partitioning off applications of RDF, and embedding *them*. I agree that limiting ourselves to just Dublin Core would be silly, but it's a good a place to start as any. Next on the list would probably be RDFS, so that people can create RDF Schemas, human annotated. -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 16 April 2001 15:28:01 UTC