- From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:47:02 -0500
- To: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
- Cc: Peter Krantz <peter@peterkrantz.se>, egov-ig mailing list <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
my apologies: the numbering was a bit off in the URL citations list
... it should have looked more like this:
[1] http://id.loc.gov
[2] http://www.data.gov/communities/node/116/blogs/41361
[3] http://manu.sporny.org/2012/google-indexing-schema-rdfa/
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
> I know I might be missing some context here, but the statement that
> HTML Microdata is an evolutionary dead end is very strong, and in fact
> I strongly disagree with it. Compared with RDFa, Microdata represents
> a vastly simplified processing model for consumers of metadata we find
> in HTML on the Web. It also lacks a lot of the confusing baggage that
> comes along with semantic web technologies. This simplicity comes at a
> price of course in the form of lack of expressiveness, and a clear
> path to using existing RDF driven vocabularies. I say this as a member
> of the Semantic Web Deployment group (which no longer exists), which
> had a hand in creating the RDFa standard, and as a publisher of
> hundreds of thousands of RDFa documents at the Library of Congress
> [1].
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone on this
> discussion list is in a place to be able to officially say that the US
> Government should be using RDFa v1.1 over Microdata. Currently all the
> schema.org examples use Microdata, and I've seen statements from
> data.gov about their interest in supporting the use of schema.org [1].
> The thread above made it sound like schema.org partners (Google, Bing,
> etc) have made a commitment to parse RDFa. I know there has been some
> anecdotal evidence [2] that this is the case, but has anyone said
> anything official yet?
>
> I don't want to make this sound like I think RDFa has no value. I
> think it does. But in the interests of one (happy) Web, a topic that
> should be near and dear to the mission of the W3C, could we please
> refrain from making official sounding statements about what can and
> cannot be used on US Government websites?
>
> Thanks,
> //Ed
>
> [1] http://www.data.gov/communities/node/116/blogs/41361
> [2] http://manu.sporny.org/2012/google-indexing-schema-rdfa/
>
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ref: a formal recommendation
>>
>> Hyperlinks have an engineering pedigree, and RDFa 1.1 Lite is expressed in
>> this "language" ...
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
>>
>> (sorry I have no way to post this at the moment)
>>
>> In that context, a subset of Plain (Unicode) Text for eGov Work might be
>> defined as by reference to RFC 2396. Note that several keyboard characters
>> are missing, {}[]`~|\#$^, etc., and some have been added, copyright, etc..
>> Keyboards are manufactured to suit very old USASCII sensibilities, not a big
>> deal actually because any character without a key has a Unicode.
>>
>> unicode = "&" + "#x" + ([hex]{4,2}) + ";"
>> = "&" + "#x" + ([hex]{4,2}) + ";"
>>
>> empty = | "∅"
>> = | "∅"
>>
>> [hex] = [RFC 2396]
>> [lowalpha] = [RFC 2396]
>> [upalpha] = [RFC 2396]
>> [digit] = [RFC 2396]
>>
>> collapse = | " " | "\n"
>> = | " " | " "
>>
>> punctuation = | "'" | "." | "?" | "," | ";" | ":" | """ | "!"
>> = | "'" | "." | "?" | "," | ";"
>> | ":" | """ | "!"
>>
>> math = | "-" | "+" | "/" | "=" | "<" | ">"
>> = | "-" | "+" | "/" | "=" | "<" |
>> ">"
>>
>> group = | "(" | ")"
>> = | "("| ")"
>>
>> egov = | "@" | "%" | "©" | "®" | "§" | "™" | "¶" | "¤"
>> = | "@" | "%" | "©" | "®" | "§" |
>> "™" | "¶" | "¤"
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Peter Krantz <peter@peterkrantz.se>
>> To: egov-ig mailing list <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
>> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 11:35 AM
>> Subject: Re: [DataGov-DEV] Updated Microdata to RDF Working Draft
>>
>>
>> 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 Tuesday, 18 December 2012 22:47:30 UTC