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: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:56:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4A448D4E.7080102@danbri.org>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
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>
On 26/6/09 10:51, Toby Inkster wrote:
> 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.

Yep, pretty much as I feared. Also the Google SGAPI currently only reads 
FOAF in RDF/XML form, not yet updated to use the rdfa support in Rapper.

Re app developers, it depends a lot. If your app is built inside some 
framework - eg. Protege - RDFa might be quite hard to integrate. Some 
apps also store to local disk rather than HTTP space, and so using 
content-negotiation is tricky. RDFa files don't have any well known 
file-suffix patterns either.


Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 09:03:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:57 UTC