Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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_
|
