- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 20:49:39 +0000
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-03-09, at 19:44, Manu Sporny wrote:
> At some point during the telecon I made the point that RDF/XML is a
> failed format. Steve Harris said "RDF/XML is was very widely used too,
> it's just not liked" and Sandro followed up with "I don't agree that
> RDFa was more successful than RDF/XML."
[ I meant "is/was" incidentally, it was a typo. ]
To back this up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS#History
I would have trouble writing a definition of success that excluded RSS circa 2002, more recent formats have muddied the waters a bit, but it's still a very common format.
Also, Adobe XMP is serialised externally in RDF/XML (inside a wrapper element), though on the web it's more commonly found embedded in JPEGs and the like. I don't know what syntax is used when embedded - almost certainly not RDF/XML. As an Adobe Lightroom user, I've got something like 100,000 XMP files sitting on various drives. Here's the head of one I pulled at random, 2010/2010-04-03-Regents-St/_D7A3501.xmp:
<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 4.2-c020 1.124078, Tue Sep 11 2007 23:21:40 ">
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/">
....
None of this means that I'd hold up RDF/XML as good practice though, I certainly only endured it because of the utility I got from the data, rather than using it out of choice.
- Steve
--
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 21:13:06 UTC