Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-metadata - Re: cc:Agent, foaf:Agent

cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: cc-metadata AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: cc:Agent, foaf:Agent
  • Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:34:49 -0800

Lucas Gonze wrote:
Sure. I'm working out my own opinion by playing devil's advocate.

I appreciate that. Thanks! I'm sure nothing I say below is new, but what the hell --

Like a lot of people, I have much respect for FOAF-as-XML, so I can see the appeal.

As a rule you should avoid RDF in XML if it means you can't use an ordinary XML parser. That doesn't happen until you reach a critical mass, but every bit of RDF you put on gets you closer. It's already true that somebody can stuff true RDF into CC metadata, making it unusable in most apps.

If you're using RDF/XML there's no point at which you can't use an ordinary XML parser. It's a question of how much RDF semantics you need to be aware of in order to make any use of the data. Seems to me that's influenced by things like the extent to which your vocabulary requires knowledge of an RDF schema (e.g., foaf:Person is a subclass of foaf:Agent) and the extent to which your data can be used as a tree as opposed to an arbitary graph and the extent to which non-specialized apps can ignore stuff that makes no sense to them and still get something useful. The last of which argues for

The best reason to use foaf:Agent instead of cc:agent is that CC (like everybody) should reuse standards. That's the most compelling reason to use foaf:Agent, probably compelling enough to go ahead with it.

--
Mike Linksvayer
http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page