• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
• From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:08:12 +0100
• In-reply-to: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E52020E87D1@R...>
• References: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E52020E87D1@R...>
• Sender: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• User-agent: KMail/1.6

Joshua Allen wrote,
> I think that both of these assumptions miss the 90% value proposition
> for "open metadata".

There's no 90% value proposition to miss until you can give concrete 
examples of exactly what the value is, _and_ make it seem vaguely 
plausible that it's feasible.

I've seen precious little of either, either in this iteration of the 
permathread or elsewhere. Plenty of wild utopianism, and some fairly 
mundane examples of using RDF as a substitue for MIME headers.

Can you, or anyone else for that matter, point to something a little 
more concrete or a little more more convincing?

Cheers,


Miles

• References:
  • RE: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
    • From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
• Next by Date: RE: The triples datamodel -- was Re: Semantic Web permathread, iteration n+1
• Previous by thread: RE: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
• Next by thread: RE: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathread thing)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread