[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: SemWeb again

• To: mc@x... (Mike Champion)
• Subject: Re: SemWeb again
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:17:45 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: xml-dev@l... (xml-dev)
• In-reply-to: <LK5ZJHUQE9VPC92WRZVSTNUS1WMGLH.3cc71d35@MChamp> from "Mike Champion" at Apr 24, 2002 05:01:41 PM

Mike Champion scripsit:

> OK, I'll take the flames on this :~) but I'm pretty sure this is the
> "conventional wisdom" and not some idiosyncratic position of mine.
> I consider myself a friendly skeptic, I'd be happy to be convinced that
> something like RDDL+RDF or some RDF version of a well-accepted controlled
> vocabulary (e.g. SNOMED in the medical field) adds real value over what
> we can do without it.

No flame here.  But you could ask our customers who are paying a 10%
premium for XHTML news with RDF-format SNOMED, vs. those who just get
the XHTML, whether *they* consider it worthwhile.  I grant that this
is not really a proper comparison, as I doubt whether any of them are
using general RDF tools.  But it really didn't cost us anything extra
to make our metadata RDF-compliant (the positive side of the very general
RDF syntax rules).

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@r...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SemWeb again
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • Re: SemWeb again
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SemWeb again
• Next by Date: Re: SemWeb again
• Previous by thread: Re: SemWeb again
• Next by thread: Re: SemWeb again
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread