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

Re: Segment RDF on BBC Programmes

From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 11:42:59 +0100
Message-ID: <82593ac00905070342x7ef39472x987cbbb1ff41d557@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Heath <tom.heath@talis.com>
Cc: giovanni.tummarello@deri.org, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
Hello!

> Wading into this conversation a little late, but feel compelled to comment...
>
> I'll be honest, I find these kind of RDFa vs RDF/XML vs "A.N. Other
> Publishing Setup" discussions tedious and counter-productive.
> Different technical approaches will be appropriate in different
> scenarios (*), so whatever our personal preferences let's not make
> blanket statements in favour of one approach over another without
> providing qualifying information for people who may be newer to the
> field and not have in depth appreciation of the subtleties. One of the
> great strengths of the Linked Data community has been its pragmatism,
> and while RDFa may be the pragmatic choice in some situations it won't
> be in others.

I completely agree with Tom here, and find this RDFa vs RDF/XML debate
quite tedious. For example, in our programmes pages (e.g.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00k6mpd)  we don't expose all the
available versions (signed, shortened, original, etc.) because it is
not directly relevant for human consumption - we just merge different
things version-related that are relevant (e.g. on-demand audio/video,
etc.) to provide a good user experience. So if we were to use only
RDFa, we would loose that valuable bit of information.

Some data needs to be prodded and merged to not overload the user with
information and just present him with bits relevant to human
consumption. However, in the raw RDF views, we can provide all these
details, that may be relevant for applications, e.g. getting all
broadcasts of a signed version of a particular programme.

So different publishing methodologies are appropriate for different needs :-)

Cheers,
y
Received on Thursday, 7 May 2009 10:43:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:20 UTC