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

Re: Segment RDF on BBC Programmes

From: Aldo Bucchi <aldo.bucchi@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 06:57:04 -0400
Message-ID: <7a4ebe1d0905070357u1647bfa5l234903f57dc21c6c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Heath <tom.heath@talis.com>, giovanni.tummarello@deri.org, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

Agree here. In fact, let me say that my own "RDFavoritisms" have
morphed over time as I have run into situations where one approach is
better than the other, for any number of reasons. I am doing things
now that I once thought to be heresy.
I guess the trick is not to argue about what's better/best but to make
every possible choice CONSISTENT with the conceptual framework being
built, so that every drop of participation adds up and crystallizes.
Truth is none of us can foresee which one approach will have the most
data 3 years from now. This thing shifts with the winds ( there are
more surprises to come, for sure ).

Now, what would be useful is a decision tree or a list of recipes. Let
newcomers choose but don't overwhelm them with total freedom either.

That's the wonder of Linked Data. The simple recipes... that... work! ;)


Aldo Bucchi
Office: +56 2 795 4532
Mobile:+56 9 7623 8653

This message is only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient, please do not distribute or copy this
communication, by e-mail or otherwise. Instead, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail.
Este mensaje está destinado sólo a la persona u organización al cual está
dirigido y podría contener información privilegiada y confidencial. Si usted no
es el destinatario, por favor no distribuya ni copie esta comunicación, por
email o por otra vía. Por el contrario, por favor notifíquenos inmediatamente
vía e-mail.
Received on Thursday, 7 May 2009 10:57:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:56 UTC