- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 17:46:09 -0600
- To: Greg FitzPatrick <greg.fitzpatrick@metamatrix.se>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Greg FitzPatrick <greg.fitzpatrick@metamatrix.se> wrote: > I argue that before we can have a semantic web we should at least have a > semantic mail. While it may not be a prerequisite, I certainly think it's useful and may actually be one of the killer apps for the Semantic Web. We've had this discussion before on XML-DIST-APP, search for "Time for XMail?" > Though I am completely serious about this, I will warn you there is an > undertone in this proposal: Would we do it? Would we really insert these > tags into our mails? What tags? I see no more tagging than already exists -- the rest is just the sharing of data. >> http://www.mozilla.org/blue-sky/misc/199805/intertwingle.html > Greg: good ideas from Jamie Z but as I understand it, this deals with mail > as defined in RFC 821-2 (as is), without thought to extensions. But it does mention RDF and XML. ;-) Anyways, if this hasn't been done yet, and requires no changes to the email infrastructure, what makes you think an entire infrastructure overhaul will take off? >> Re the details, I would propose a distinction between representations of >> mail in RDF and re-formaliting the body of mail messages in XML/RDF. The Of course. >> latter is harder as you'd need rich mail clients. Somewhere in >> http://www.w3.org/Submission/ there was a proposal a year or so back for >> such a format. I can't seem to find it, but for the former: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2000/07/ looks somewhat useful. In general, this may have some overlap with the XML Protocol Activity. Personally, I'd recommend my changedPage spec, for its utter simplicity: http://my.theinfo.org/changed/ It may require some application-specific additions, but it was designed with exactly this type of application in mind. >> Who sent it, which messages it is in reply to, perhaps an RDF >> representation of autoclassified categories, plus annotations / comments >> added after the fact. That'd be plenty to be going on with. Definitely. >> We wouldn’t have to worry about the wisdom of dividing up the RDF list into >> interest and logic or debate the pros and cons of a SW list. We would no >> longer have to sort through all those hundreds of mails on our desktops but >> rather follow the flow of ideas as interpreted and presented by parsers and >> applications of our choosing. This is, of course, the value of URIs. One URI per message, categories (mailing lists) added as RDF assertions. > we replace the addressee with wwsm@w3c.org signifiying that > the mail was wwsm hunky-dory and to be considered as part of the big picture, > we would have to add a tag for the core list name ex. – RDF logic. Hmm, rather than trying to build this kind of extensional mess on the current system, I say start anew. > 2. We should formalise our way of quoting. If we used HTML, we could use <q cite="{x}">. > mail was stamped with its archive URL. Definitely should happen -- mail should _be_ its archive URL! This is the URI world, after all. > I would be prepared to offer 10 hours of my short life on this if anybody > else was interested. Only 10? I'm interested, perhaps even more than 10 hours worth. > Perhaps an unofficial BOF in San Diego? Sorry, I won't be in San Diego. > There might be some tie-ins with WebDav and XML-mail as well. XML-Mail? You mean: http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/xmtp.html ? Looks like Jonathan's site is down. -- [ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2000 18:46:38 UTC