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

Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:51:16 +0100
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, bill.roberts@planet.nl, public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Message-Id: <1246006276.20411.14.camel@ophelia2.g5n.co.uk>
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 09:35 +0200, Dan Brickley wrote:

> Does every major RDF toolkit have an integrated RDFa parser already?

No - and even for those that do, it's often rather flaky.

Seseme/Rio doesn't have one in its stable release, though I believe one
is in development for 3.0.

Redland/Raptor often (for me at least) seems to crash on RDFa. It also
complains a lot when named entities are used (e.g. &nbsp;) even though
the XHTML+RDFa 1.0 DTD does allow them.

Jena (just testing on sparql.org) doesn't seem to handle RDFa at all.

Not really "toolkits" per se, but cwm and the current release of
Tabulator don't seem to have RDFa support. (Though I think support for
the latter is being worked on.)

For application developers who are specifically trying to support RDFa,
none of this is a major problem - it's pretty easy to include a little
content-type detection and pass the XHTML through an RDFa->XML converter
prior to the rest of your code getting its hands on it - but this does
require specific handling, which must be an obstacle to adoption.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 08:52:04 UTC

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