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

Re: RDFa and GRDDL and Drupal

From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:17:24 +0200
To: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PM-EH.20060530121724.BC06.3.1D@192.168.27.2>

On 29.05.2006 21:37:15, Ben Adida wrote:
>
>
>Remember the RDFa requirements (a subset here, for clarity):
>1) publisher independence in picking vocabularies
>2) in-context metadata with copy-and-paste
>3) expressing metadata about embedded objects and fragments of pages
>
>GRDDL doesn't provide (2). Microformats don't provide (1) and (3).  
>eRDF doesn't provide (2) and (3).
Neither RDFa nor eRDF support (2) unless the target document
contains the used prefix/namespace definitions. Sure, RDFa allows
in-tag specification of namespace prefixes, but it's most likely
that deployed apps put them in the head section. *If* the document
where the html is pasted to contains matching namespace definitions,
(2) is supported by both RDFa and eRDF.
And eRDF does support (3), although it doesn't distinguish
between page fragments or any other IRI-identified resource (which
is good, IMO). What eRDF doesn't support (yet) is the use of page
fragments (those which have nested tags) as literal triple objects.

Ben


>
>I hope that, next time you suggest GRDDL or MFs or eRDF, you point  
>out these three important pieces of information. RDFa was created for  
>a number of important reasons, reasons I've discussed with you in  
>private and on this mailing list many times. Please remember these  
>points in the future, even if you disagree with them. Without  
>pointing them out, you're misleading folks by claiming that they  
>"might as well" use other solutions.
>
>Yes, it's clear you prefer everything but RDFa. But no, these  
>solutions are not all the same. MFs might be enough in some cases.  
>GRDDL might be enough in some cases. eRDF might be enough in some  
>cases. These are all great contributions that have their place. But  
>they are not replacements for RDFa, and there are a *lot* of  
>legitimate uses of RDFa, in particular Creative Commons (50M pages  
>and growing), semantic wikis, etc....
>
>[...]
>
>> rel="tag" is certainly simpler than RDFa or eRDF or GRDDL or any
>> of the other markup idioms in this space and it's pretty widely
>> deployed. I don't look forward to trying to change author habits
>> for that sort of thing.
>
>And yet you too are trying to change authors' habits, by having them  
>add a PROFILE attribute when that is clearly not the current  
>practice. I think it's a great idea, but you can't have your cake and  
>eat it, too. Either you accept what authors are doing exactly as is,  
>or you try to change their habits. Clearly, what authors are  
>currently doing is not enough, according to your own efforts.
>
>I think you and I agree here: there is a problem with scalability if  
>you don't ground your concepts in URIs *somehow*. So, when  
>microformat users start adding a PROFILE attribute, then GRDDL will  
>work, and so will hGRDDL for converting microformats into RDFa, and  
>then all the RDFa tools can read microformats and preserve metadata  
>context, and life will be great! The same can be done for eRDF, with  
>a profile attribute. I want an inclusive approach to all of these  
>things, and this inclusive approach *includes* RDFa for all of the  
>important use cases that are not covered by other solutions.
>
>I was under the impression you thought this was a cool idea [1].
>
>Regardless, I would ask that you accept that, even if you don't see  
>the point of RDFa, many people do.
>
>-Ben
>
>[1] http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/133
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 10:16:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:02 GMT