W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2009

Re: RDFa and Web Directions North 2009

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 18:45:06 +0900
To: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, RDFa Community <public-rdfa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090209094500.GA15680@sideshowbarker>

Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, 2009-02-08 23:10 -0500:

> Most seemed to hate the term "RDFa"
> -----------------------------------
> 
> Many confused RDFa with RDF/XML and even more confused RDF/XML with RDF.
> Web developer understanding surrounding the differences between RDF,
> RDF/XML and RDFa are a mess. People got it after the talk, but several
> made the suggestion that we re-brand RDFa because "it's different from
> RDF and there are really bad connotations associated with RDF". "It
> sounds way too technical." were some of the other comments

Brad Neuberg from Google suggested the name "Really Simple
Metadata". It doesn't seem like anybody else has coined that yet,
so you might want to consider doing something with it -- if not as
a wholesale replacement name, at least as a tagline of some kind
to get the message across.

> SVG + RDFa
> ----------
> Doug Schepers worked RDFa into his SVG presentation, using it to
> describe people in an image such as "pretty", "tubby", "skinny", "bald".
> He wanted the ability to tag areas of an image and attach semantic
> attributes or descriptions to the image.

I saw Doug's presentation as well. The part that Manu describes
was quite funny but also pretty effective, I think -- as far as
getting the audience to see a specific example of the value of
combining RDFa with SVG.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 09:45:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 February 2009 09:45:17 GMT