W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > December 2006

Re: [RDFa] Telecon Monday - 1400 UTC

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 21:54:03 +0000
Message-ID: <640dd5060612031354g4466cecau77f7d431e63f959a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@mit.edu>
Cc: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, public-swd-wg@w3.org

Hi Ben,

I agree with your points, in particular about microformats and RDFa.
But I wonder if what Michael is getting at relates to something we've
also discussed before, which is that since blogs and wikis are very
quick ways for people to 'publish' to the web without having the whole
paraphernalia of web-servers and the like, then it means that if you
can publish HTML (via Drupal, Blogger, Wordpress, and so on), then you
can now publish RDF just as easily.

In my experience of RDF over the years, particularly with FoaF, the
question of 'publishing' your own metadata has always been
problematic, and RDFa provides the 'missing link'.

Can you clarify Michael?

Regards,

Mark

On 03/12/06, Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Michael,
>
> Thanks for your points.
>
> > 1. Looking at the success of microformats, a "smooth transition"/migration
> > description is a CSF to RDFa, IMHO. One of the UC should thus be placed in the blog-world,
> > showing how different vocabularies can be mixed, running queries on top of the resulting
> > RDF graph, etc.
>
> I disagree with this being a critical success factor for *RDFa*. It's
> important to find ways to make microformats eventually part of the
> semantic web, using approaches like GRDDL. The onus is not entirely on RDFa.
>
> At the syntax level, we won't have full backwards compatibility with
> microformats, since microformats are inherently parsed differently
> depending on the vocabulary used, meaning that mixing vocabularies
> becomes a bit messy. This is precisely where RDFa shines: only one
> parser for all vocabularies. So there's an inherent incompatibility here.
>
> Now, maybe you mean that it should "feel similar," in which case I
> agree, and believe it is doable.
>
> > 2. Another UC I think is worth it, is the usage of RDFa in a Wiki. Beside the fact that
> > already certain Semantic Wiki approaches emerge, a standardised way of using RDFa in Wikis
> > is somehow desirable.
>
> I look forward to hearing more about what you mean here!
>
> > To promote the spread of RDFa, each of us should not only provide "real world" information
> > (homepages, project descriptions, etc.), but also look for opportunities in the closer area. #
> > For example, the SWEO-IG [1] recently discussed the usage of RDF in Wikis at their first F2F [2].
> > Activities or events like this are what I mean with opportunities ...
>
> Sounds great.
>
> -Ben
>
>
>


-- 
Mark Birbeck
CEO
x-port.net Ltd.

e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net
t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/
b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/

Download our XForms processor from
http://www.formsPlayer.com/
Received on Sunday, 3 December 2006 21:54:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:03 GMT