W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2009

Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:34:37 +0200
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0906240534i4d56c726p532db532edf5d286@mail.gmail.com>
To: bill.roberts@planet.nl
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-lod@w3.org
Ivan, two words : more python!

2009/6/24  <bill.roberts@planet.nl>:
> Ivan
>
> Thanks very much.  I'll take a look at your python scripts, which should be
> very useful.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
> ________________________________
> Van: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
> Verzonden: wo 24-6-2009 9:14
> Aan: Bill Roberts
> CC: public-lod@w3.org
> Onderwerp: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation
>
> Bill,
>
> a while ago I wrote a blog on how I do it on the Semantic Web Activity
> home page:
>
> http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/05/using_rdfa_to_add_information.html
>
> the blog is from the early days of RDFa, some of the specific issues may
> be different today (see below), but the overall line, I believe, works
> well. It may be helpful...
>
> What is different or should be different:
>
> - The .htaccess example refers to the RDFa distiller at W3C (which,
> well, I wrote, so of course I had to eat my own dogfood:-). With the
> increasing popularity of RDFa our system guys have already complained
> about sudden server request surges on that service. Ie, although it is
> fine to use the service as it is in the .htaccess example (with full
> URI-s, though) if you (or anybody else) uses it with a large number of
> calls, it is better to install the service locally an run it from there
> (it is a bunch of python files, it should not be difficult to install it).
>
> (Of course, an alternative is to run the script only once, when updating
> the html file. But, if not done manually, this needs some server magic...)
>
> - I use http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ as an example, though _that_ one has
> changed a little bit and is more complicated today (Essentially, the
> HTML file has become too large and I had to cut into several files, so I
> have to merge the RDF graphs. This is something different...)
>
> Cheers
>
> Ivan
>
>
> Bill Roberts wrote:
>> Thanks everyone who replied.
>>
>> It seems that there's a lot of support for the RDFa route in that
>> (perhaps not statistically significant) sample of opinion.  But to
>> summarise my understanding of your various bits of advice:  since there
>> aren't currently so many applications out there consuming RDF, a good
>> RDF publisher should provide as many options as possible.
>>
>> Therefore rather than deciding for either RDFa or a content-negotiated
>> approach, why not do both (and provide a dump file too)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>



-- 
http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 12:35:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:21 UTC