W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > December 2012

Re: [DataGov-DEV] Updated Microdata to RDF Working Draft

From: Peter Krantz <peter@peterkrantz.se>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:35:08 +0100
Message-Id: <AB36D7D3-A36F-42D8-824D-4552A7FF6E20@peterkrantz.se>
To: egov-ig mailing list <public-egov-ig@w3.org>

Hi!

Interesting! Is that statement publicly available somewhere? Is it a formal recommendation that will be put in a guideline document or similar?

Regards,

Peter


14 dec 2012 kl. 17:51 skrev Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>:

> To eGov'ers,
> The following is a relevant thread to our discussion today raised by Daniel Bennett re: human & machine readable data.  The thread was a discussion started in September 2012 related to what might be contained in a best practice recommendation for US Government Agencies & Offices vis a vis mark up to improve access, readability & re-use of government Web pages.
> 
> This executive summary is, stick with RDFa 1.1 Lite because it enjoys both support from the world's major search engines *and* the Web's standard organization, the W3C.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bernadette Hyland, co-chair 
> W3C Government Linked Data Working Group
> Charter: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "Thomas, George (OS/ASA/OCIO/OEA)" <George.Thomas1@hhs.gov>
>> Subject: Re: [DataGov-DEV] FW: Updated Microdata to RDF Working Draft
>> Date: September 26, 2012 5:35:58 PM EDT
>> To: Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>, "Marion Royal (XI)" <marion.royal@GSA.GOV>
>> Cc: "DATAGOV-DEV@LISTSERV.GSA.GOV" <DATAGOV-DEV@LISTSERV.GSA.GOV>
>> 
>> Agree, and the RDFa 1.1 Lite Primer answers Marion's question about XHTML vs HTML5  from that doc;
>> 
>> "RDFa 1.1 is specified for both XHTML [XHTML-RDFA] and HTML5 [HTML-RDFA]."
>>  
>> RDFa 1.1 Lite is a subset of RDFa 1.1. 
>> 
>> -g
>> 
>> From: Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:46 PM
>> To: Marion Royal <marion.royal@gsa.gov>, George Thomas <george.thomas1@hhs.gov>
>> Cc: data gov <DATAGOV-DEV@listserv.gsa.gov>
>> Subject: Re: [DataGov-DEV] FW: Updated Microdata to RDF Working Draft
>> 
>>> Hi George & Marion,
>>> You're not the only one with a headache, I'd like to think I got some ice cream in the deal ;-)  
>>> 
>>> The following guidance is provided as a practitioner of Linked Data for the USG and W3C Gov't Linked Data working group co-chair.  It is as current as you're likely to find.  My sources include the co-chair of W3C RDF WG & Schema.org.  I hope this helps the Open Data working group.
>>> 
>>> The goal of this discussion is to provide structured data within HTML pages.  Agencies want to do this because they want people to gather structured data and re-use it.  If Agencies publish this data in structured ways, tools can spider and use it; developers can use it and humans can access/re-use it easier.  This is what open data people consider nirvana.
>>> 
>>> The question is, should US Government produce pages with:
>>> a) microdata
>>> b) RDFa 1.1 Lite [1]
>>> c) RDFa 1.1 [2]
>>> d) none of the above
>>> 
>>> The answer: b) - RDFa 1.1 Lite
>>> 
>>> The US Government is best served by producing Web pages with RDFa 1.1 Lite because the large search engines, as members of Schema.org, have agreed to parse that information.  Google and Yahoo! have been supporting RDFa 1.1 Lite for some time.  Other big search engines, e.g., Bing, Yandex have agreed to support it through Schema.org.  Further, RDF 1.1 Lite, is fully upward compatible to RDFa 1.1. Thus, anyone with structured data that cannot be expressed in RDFa 1.1 Lite  *can* express it in RDFa 1.1 and the search engines will get out of it what they can.
>>> 
>>> The USG should not be recommending the use of microdata.  Microdata is an evolutionary dead end.  We don't want to limit what people might want to say in structured data in Web pages in the future.  
>>> 
>>> Again, to be perfectly clear, experts on Web standards should be giving clear guidance to US Government Agencies to use RDFa 1.1 Lite, not microdata.   RDF 1.1 Lite is basically microdata except you can define different vocabularies.  This is a good thing because organizations describe data in different ways.
>>> 
>>> If you review only one primer on RDFa 1.1 with treatment of RDFa Lite, please see the W3C "RDFa 1.1 Primer", Ben Adida, Ivan Herman, Manu Sporny, Mark Birbeck, eds, published 07-June-2012.[3]
>>> 
>>> Just for completeness on this thread, today (Sept 2012) we have two W3C Standards for expressing RDF, they are RDF/XML and RDFa.  The RDF Working Group is currently working to standardize Turtle, N-triples, JSON/LD which is imminent.
>>> 
>>> The W3C HTML5 specification is currently an "Editor's Draft" as of 25-Sept-2012.  The Editors include people from Microsoft, W3C and Apple.  The working group is charter through 31-Dec-2014 which implies that an HTML5 Recommendation is expected sometime in 2014.  
>>> 
>>> Keep your feet on the path of RDFa 1.1 Lite and we'll all reach open data nirvana in this lifetime.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Bernadette Hyland, co-chair 
>>> W3C Government Linked Data Working Group
>>> Charter: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/
>>> 
>>> [1] RDFa Lite 1.1, W3C Recommendation, June 7, 2012, Manu Sporny, editor, see http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-lite/
>>> 
>>> [2] RDFa Core 1.1, W3C Recommendation, June 7, 2012, Ben Adida, Mark Birbeck, Shane McCarron, Ivan Herman, editors, see http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/
>>> 
>>> [3] RDFa 1.1 Primer, see http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa-primer/
>>> 
> 



Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 17:36:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 December 2012 17:36:02 GMT