W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001


From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:20:42 -0700
Message-ID: <019501c0c795$09c2f4c0$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Murray Altheim" <altheim@eng.sun.com>
Cc: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
From: "Murray Altheim" <altheim@eng.sun.com>

> I've never offered to solve world hunger, even for RDF flesh. I don't know
> how to solve that one. The *only* way I can imagine (that wouldn't involve
> an act of Congress) would be to have CDATA section nodes containing RDF be
> notation-marked as RDF, such that they get passed off to an RDF schema
> processor for *appropriate* processing. This isn't technically all that
> difficult, but it's religiously and politically unlikely. IMO.

Actually this solution is rather attractive to me ... it has the smell of
the right way to do it.  But I'm a babe in the woods where it comes to
swimming in these waters.  Could you (or somebody) sketch the theological
implications for us?

> Why do you need to have the RDF be *in* the XHTML file? Honestly, without
> trying to sell you an XTM solution, this is precisely what XTM is good
> for: mapping resources within XML files. [..good stuff snipped...]

Well for the general solution to describing resources with RDF we need to be
able to read and write it ... were working on the writing ... the reading
(first level) will need to be just as simple.  Ideally a browser plug-in or
the browser itself can pop up a surfable user friendly window of the
metadata.  Knowing the XTM tags and retrieving other resources is going to
complicate that application an order of magnitude.  Imho, it's a deal

> As has been mentioned in other threads and by other people, creating
> external documents means more document management, less document
> the likelihood of metadata-document mismatch, etc. People already spend
> much time managing (or not managing) their document sets. I'd hate to add
> to their burden.

I agree.  I seem to smell a consensus that the embedded way is the best ...
it's just that there is this theological problem with it,  and it's
currently politically incorrect.   Well shucks .. we stopped the war, didn't
we, so this should be an easy piece.

Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2001 19:25:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:29 UTC