Re: The Tragedy of RSS

Hi Dave,

Seems we are talking across each other ... one more attempt to 
wrap this up  below ...

In a message dated 10/6/2002 12:03:33 PM US Mountain Standard Time, writes:
> > Your email seems to contend that Dublin Core has some special "tie" to
> > RDF.  By "ties" I do not mean influence or contribution, I mean 
> dependence
> > and exclusivity.  So, what is the dependence of DC on RDF?  
> > More below...
> DC and RDF are both interested in inclusivity and independence - the
> terms and standards are mixable, you can add your own stuff and do it
> your own way with our without each other.  There is no rigidity -
> that is one of the many principles of the web that were taken on by DC
> and RDF.  This might be of interest: 
>   Digital Libraries and the Semantic Web, Eric Miller

All I was saying was that the dublin core elements are not 
exclusively for use in RDF documents.  They can be used in 
HTML and XML documents.  Correct?

> > It is obvious that the DC elements can be RDF predicates about Resources.
> > But you still have not proven that they are *more useful* in RDF than 
> > in XML.  That is the key issue.
> Prove what?  You are mixing layers in a way that makes no sense to
> me; asking why terms in a model (the dc elements) are "more useful"
> than a syntax (XML).  That's like asking to prove why the 'From:'
> email header is more useful than ASCII.  Because it there is more
> meaning?
> You can read up on the real history of DC and RDF in many places.
> Try google, the papers from the DC workshops from 1997/1998 or the
> RDF M&S recommendation document (1998) and see the names of people
> from the DC/digital library community who worked on the RDF
> specifications.

We are talking about different things.  That is ok.  I do not believe I was
mixing layers.  

Thanks for the response,

 - Mike
Michael C. Daconta
Director, Web & Technology Services

Received on Sunday, 6 October 2002 22:44:21 UTC