Re: Identification of RDFa content

How about indicating a file is RDFa-d with a plain old link, say to
http://rdfa.info/inside? (imaginary page)

This allows a non-aggressive RDFa consumer to check before handing the
file off to a RDFa parser and helps a crawler that wants RDFa-d
documents find relevant seeds via a link:http://rdfa.info/inside query
to a normal web search engine.


On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 16:18 -0500, Ben Adida wrote:
> 
> Ivan,
> 
> Sorry for the delayed response here.
> 
> RDFa is meant to be a natural part of XHTML. In other words, declaring a
> document to be XHTML 1.2 or 2.0 is enough to make a parser look for
> RDFa. This may be done by specifying a GRDDL profile in the XHTML 1.2
> and 2.0 namespace documents.
> 
> Of course, parsers may choose to be more promiscuous than that and look
> inside XHTML 1.1 and 1.0 if they so choose...
> 
> -Ben
> 
> Ivan Herman wrote:
> > This may have been discussed before, in which case apologies. I have not
> > seen a reference to it in the latest draft.
> > 
> > The question: how does one discover that an XHTML file is 'RDFa-d'? The
> > issue stroke me as a result of some discussions lately around the
> > Tabulator[1] and Chris Bizer's announcement[2]. In both cases one can
> > see engines that are able to make an indirect step, so to say; ie, they
> > get a URI to a traditional site, but they can deduce the presence of a
> > corresponding RDF data which they can add to their graph they build and
> > explore. Examples are the <link references to RDF data, or the GRDDL
> > profile.
> > 
> > Hence the question again: how does an automatic procedure 'know' that an
> > XHTML file contains RDFa encoded extra RDF data? Of course, a processor
> > could RDFa process *all* XHTML file it gets hold of, but it may be worth
> > adding some standard notification. Also, if such identification was
> > around, the same URI could be used both for human consumption and for an
> > RDFa-aware RDF environment.
> > 
> > One would think of a profile attribute or is some sort of a special and
> > predefined <link>... whichever. Something would be good.
> > 
> > Any thoughts?
> > 
> > Ivan
> > 
> > 
> > [1] http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/165
> > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Oct/0065.html
> > 
> 
> 
-- 
  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer