-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<2r********************************@news.spar tanicus.utvint
ernet.ie>...
I briefly glanced at w3c's documents on the new meta data
schemes such as Dublin Core a few months back. I could not see the point,
author defined meta data in the form of <meta> tags has failed,
afaics not because of a lack of definition, but because the principle of
author defined meta data is afaik fundamentally flawed.
You missed the *biggest* difference between HTML meta elements
and RDF -- RDF isn't limited to author-generated assertions.
That is: HTML meta elements can only refer to the page they're
part of, so there's no way for *me* to create HTML metadata
about *your* pages. RDF, on the other hand, lets anyone make an
assertion about about any resource, using a format that makes
comparing descriptions easy. So, you can create RDF that says
"I've got the greatest homepage ever", and I can create
compatible RDF that says "No he doesn't", and the end-user can
read one, the other, or both.
Metadata in an HTML universe is a question of "Do I trust the
author?"; metadata in an RDF universe is a question of "Who do I
trust more?" After that, it's all about competition, reputation,
and trust. If you earn a reputation as more trustworthy than me,
than people trust your description of your homepage. If I'm
considered more trustworthy, then people trust my description of
your homepage.
And I know somebody out there is saying "but that's too
complicated". It shouldn't be -- it's the decision-making
process people use in the real world. For example: Which
description of a book do you trust more -- the publisher's
description on the back cover, the professional book reviewer's,
your best friend's, or the library card catalog's? That's a
decision about trustworthiness that you're making based on your
own experiences. RDF metadata can work the same way *if* there's
enough produced, *if* it's attached to people/groups that can
earn reputations (completely anonymous metadata is not so
useful), and *if* user agents are created that let end-users
manage their assessments of trust.
The RDF and OWL standards are Step One of Three. Now, people
have to start producing the metadata, and programmers have to
start making software that will use it. (Like many W3C
initiatives, it's going to take a while.)
In some ways, RDF is a format waiting for its killer app to show
up. It might not be "web descriptions", it might be "people
descriptions" (like the FOAF project), or it might be something
none of us have thought of yet. Still, there are concepts there
that are too useful to dismiss out of hand.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.01
iD8DBQFALJGVcpuEJT2bpHsRArv5AKDJiK6snP6uFOq/lL1whKPcDP5XEgCgkac+
gwZaCRHEv/YeE+tJ8Gb3N5Q=
=0sIJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----