Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: PRISM

Expand Messages
  • David Smiley
    ... (a) I like RDF, NITF is not RDF based. It s unclear why NITF even exists when RSS 0.92 does. (b) The PRISM spec seems more standards based than even RSS
    Message 1 of 3 , May 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In rss-dev@y..., "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@h...> wrote:

      > It looks interesting. Care to share with us why that format better
      > suits your needs? How was this better/worse than using NITF?

      (a) I like RDF, NITF is not RDF based. It's unclear why NITF even
      exists when RSS 0.92 does.
      (b) The PRISM spec seems more standards based than even RSS since
      most of the tags are straight RDF and DC. I.e. no channel,link,etc.
      tags needed since RDF and DC generically express those concepts.
      (c) It further defines the semantics and "best practices" of DC & RDF
      attributes & tags through PRISM, which is very helpful. I.e., what
      do I use for dc:type, dc:publisher etc.
      (d) It has unique attributes that I need (like prism:expirationTime)


      BTW, I spoke with Frank Manola personally yesterday regarding the
      semantic web, RDF, URIs, and other fun stuff.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.