- From: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sf.net>
- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 12:20:48 +0000
- To: Stephen Rhoads <rhoadsnyc@mac.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi Stephen, Stephen Rhoads writes: > > Has it occurred to anyone else that perhaps "RDF in HTML" is the wrong approach, and that what is really needed is "HTML in RDF"? > > The idea would be to build an OWL ontology to describe the elements and layout of HTML documents so that the images, text and other elements could be "annotated" (for lack of a more profound word) directly. > > Would certainly help to kickstart the adoption of the Semantic Web protocols. I might be missing something, but this sounds like a bad idea to me. XML/HTML is good for documents because of its implicit ordering. RDF doesnt have this, and so will require a lots of explicit information to describe the order. Many people don't like RSS1.0 because of the RDF 'tax' it imposes on the XML. Imagine what they'd say to the idea of replacing xml with lots of RDF! Especially if the delivery format was RDF/XML :-) Whenever I have the 'everything in RDF' idea, I try to think of e.g. bitmap images, and realise that some things will probably always be held in a non-rdf format. Cheers, Phil
Received on Friday, 6 August 2004 07:28:34 UTC