W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2008

Re: The king is dressed in void

From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:30:05 +1000
Message-ID: <a1be7e0e0806121730s7520605as69ba0e5a9426c38c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Giovanni Tummarello" <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org

2008/6/13 Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>:
> XML is a step forward. The thing started in RDF with something called
> "semantic crawling ontology" (sorry the link is broken, will have it
> fixed tomorrow http://www.sindice.com/semantic-crawling-ontology.html
> ) which had all the terms fo the sitemap in RDF already.Originally we
> wanted to propose a "srobots.rdf" :-)
>
> Then I posted example on the lod list many months ago and requests for
> comments. The reaction was very clear "RDF is way too complicated for
> hand editing, this is Meta Metadata and will need to be hand edited,
> sitemaps are MADE to do this and they're extendible" thus many weeks
> of more work and the xml version was done (it did took that time).

That is really really strange that people, linked data contributors at
that, would prefer XML over RDF in either its N3 or RDF/XML forms.
Sitemaps are in computer readable XML already. XML in either form is
not meant to be editied by hand if you can help it, but it generally
is so you can assume people won't mind RDF/XML in the end just because
of that, or they can have realtively eye-friendly N3/NTriples if they
desire if you move away from a reliance on XML.

Why should *producers* of RDF not be able to utilise RDF/XML for their
dataset descriptions? You assume producers think RDF is too
complicated for the sitemap then why would they produce linked data
sets with it???? It would be nice to resurrect the RDF version if only
to have the information available in native RDF rather than an
XML-only format as it is right now.

Peter
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 00:30:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:16 UTC