Frequently Asked Questions

esandhaus admin says:

In this thread, we'll answer questions we see around the web about rNews.

Posted at 11:03 AM on April 5, 2011

smyles admin says:

Why a single namespace for rNews - why not reuse existing vocabularies such as SKOS, DC, ...?

Posted at 1:47 PM on April 5, 2011

agebhard says:

A lot of folks have asked why we haven't sub-classed or aligned to existing
vocabularies. This is the single most frequently asked question so far.
The answer is that we want to, but felt that this work
would best be carried out in collaboration with the broader semantic web
community -- you.  If anybody would like to propose such an alignment we'd be happy to consider it as the basis for our discussions on the subject.
Our thinking thus far was to make it as easy as possible for publishers while we knowingly accepted a slightly higher burden on consumers of the metadata.
As a publisher, our approach keeps it very simple and straightforward. We're hoping to lower the barrier for those who are not experts in the world of Linked Data.
We do realize that the consumers of this embedded metadata then have to do the mapping but our line of thinking is that while it might be a little annoying it's not actually a problem. Certainly better than not having the data at all because a publisher found it too difficult to implement.
Again, we are open to constructive criticism on this (and any other) aspect of our thinking, and indeed we do hope to get proposals and ideas from you.
That is why we published rNews as an early draft.
Andreas

A lot of folks have asked why we haven't sub-classed or aligned to existing vocabularies. This is the single most frequently asked question so far. 

The answer is that we want to, but felt that this work would best be carried out in collaboration with the broader semantic web community -- you.

If anybody would like to propose such an alignment we'd be happy to consider it as the basis for our discussions on the subject.

Our thinking thus far was to make it as easy as possible for publishers while we knowingly accepted a slightly higher burden on consumers of the metadata. For the publisher, our approach keeps it very simple and straightforward. We're hoping to lower the barrier for those who are not experts in the world of Linked Data.

We do realize that the consumers of this embedded metadata then have to do the mapping but our line of thinking is that while it might be a little annoying it's not actually a problem. Certainly better than not having the data at all because a publisher found it too difficult to implement.

Again, we are open to constructive criticism on this (and any other) aspect of our thinking, and indeed we do hope to get proposals and ideas from you.


That is why we published rNews as an early draft.

Posted at 1:46 PM on April 11, 2011

michaelS says:

If the IPTC would decide to use metadata from different namespaces we have to ask; which one to choose?

The W3C Media Annotations group is working on a news ontology and lists in section 5.2.2 headlined Multimedia Metadata Formats Mapping Tables 20, in words: twenty, different existing metadata schemas. And I see that even in this long list some Formats/Schemas are missing.

That was another good reason to start with only a single namespace, some mapping would be required in this but also in a multi-namespace case.

 

Posted at 4:19 PM on April 11, 2011

You must log in to reply