Re: Identification of RDFa content

Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
> ... Is it fair to view the issue in a wider context? 
> We might have versioning needs (when RDFa 2.0 is announced in 2012 ;) 
> or we might want to declare "modules" (RDFa light, without reification, etc.).
> It seems somehow natural to me using RDFa to handle _all_ these issues? 
> Sounds strange? Well, let's have a look at it:  ...

Another use case that might be supported is using a conventional search
engine like Google to find web pages that have RDFa content and match
a query.  This would make it easier for systems to collect RDF content
about a a subject.  To allow this, we should choose a way to mark a
page as containing RDFa content that will be indexed in search engines,
or at least the most popular ones today.