- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:43:46 -0400
- To: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com> wrote: > One item that is completely glossed over is that, outside of the > Semantic Web community, no-one cares about this issue at all. I will reply to the rest in time but I wanted to get this one thing clarified. I think by "Semantic Web community" you mean the community that is currently using RDF and related languages (e.g. OWL). The use of RDF as a "resource description framework", e.g. use of Dublin Core, POWDER, and licensing metadata for document indexing, filtering, and discovery, is substantial and predates the application of RDF to knowledge representation. It's not what I personally would call Semantic Web. In fact there seems to be tension between the two applications of RDF. But the term's not that precise so we can both be right. If someone new to RDF doesn't care about interoperability with other RDF content and tools, I'm not sure what any of us can do to influence them. Ideally there would be a consensus specification, and we'd politely invite everyone to design to it, but that doesn't mean they will, and I'm not sure *any* consensus spec, no matter how well it anticipated what future needs might be, could prevent that. (We've all seen this pattern play out.) I think you are saying that maybe some agreements are less likely than others to incite rebellion by newcomers, and that this is predictable and should therefore be criterial? Thanks Jonathan
Received on Monday, 27 June 2011 15:44:13 UTC