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

Re: The king is dressed in void

From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:53:12 +0100
Message-ID: <210271540806130253j7d1b009y1e1f461591bb6de2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter Ansell" <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org

Peter, please reading the comments on the previous thread.

http://simile.mit.edu/mail/BrowseList?listName=Linking%20Open%20Data&from=12719&to=12719&count=27&by=thread&first=1&windowSize=20&selectedPage=1

---

we expect software to produce linked data automatically for the
users/webmasters.. we dont expect them to be familiar with rdf/xml
(amazingly akward) nor with n3/ntriples (try to express anything
meaningful witout blank nodes.. impossible and or just as akward as
putting all inside literals.. with blank nodes..  you've lost them
all).

N3 also doesnt have a decent describing document online you can point
people at. The docs at http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3 speaks
about the full N3 with all the extra operators and are way too
confusing to ask anyone to read just to write, e.g.the licence of its
staff list. etc.

also really.. just read what sitemaps are and are for. We dont need to
dig our hole deeper by showing yet more reinventing.

Giovanni

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:30 AM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 10:03:09 UTC

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