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

Re: Bitzi File Metadata RDF Dump

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:00:26 +0100
Message-ID: <027301c146ac$da82a9c0$a8d993c3@y0r1d9>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <aswartz@upclink.com>, <gojomo@bitzi.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> > Then again, I wouldn't have any particular objection to a
> > new URN namespace, especially an informal one. [...]
> Noooooooooooooooooooooooo......!

   @prefix : <#> .
   @prefix log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#> .
   { :x log:uri [ log:startsWith "urn:urn-x:" ] }
   log:implies { :x a :BitPrint } } a log:Truth; log:forAll :x .

Who says that committee registration is incompatable with
anarcho-decentralized RDF world views? :-)

Informal URN NIDs and "prs." tree MIME types are there for the person who
neither has the time to go through huge standardization and consensus
processes (it takes a couple of "insert name here" forms and about a week),
nor wants to have the unambiguous type through contexts problem that RDF
brings up. And, as I have shown above, it is compatable with RDF's
decentralized design view.

> Committees, official looking URN schemes, centralised
> content-type registries, all these have a role, but can also
> serve to disenfranchise those who lack the resources to
> go through a registration/standardisation process.

I agree, but don't forget the caveat! It is also easier for people to be
lazy about technologies that they probably shuold be standardizing, or can
lead to people just being sloppy about the way that they define things. How
many RDF Schema creators do you know that use machine readable descriptions
of datatypes and so on? Dublin Core for example is terrible on that front,
and although there aren't any implementations that can read datatypes yet,
that's a pretty thin excuse. We expect the implementations to come, and the
Semantic Web is meant to be machine readable.

> But committee-style endorsement should follow rather than
> preceed use, experimentation and deployment.

Yeah, that worked out *real* well for HTML :-) I don't disagree with what
you're saying [1], but there are certainly *cases*, i.e. exceptions to the
rule, that merit standardization and consensus first. I think that
Bitprints are a good example of that. For everything else...

   "Dencentralize; use RDF. That's an order, sonny!"


[1] Cover speak for "I agree with you"... but I can't say that in public,
can I? :-)

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 13:00:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:32 UTC