W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: RDFa discovery?

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:40:13 +0100
Message-ID: <4D9B37DD.3080601@webr3.org>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
CC: RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Yes, there are certainly additional ways to specify that a document 
contains RDFa, especially when dealing w/ transfer protocols.

For instance:
   Link: <>;rel=meta

That's supposing meta was actually a proper rel! (must put that on my to 
do list)!

Best,

Nathan

Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> The ongoing discussion on SWI [1] on the use of site maps and VoiD seems just as relevant for RDFa as any other RDF format.
> 
> Gregg Kellogg
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2011Apr/0003.html
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Apr 5, 2011, at 6:14 AM, "Nathan" <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Just a quick question, how does one tell whether an document contains, 
>> or does not contain, RDFa?
>>
>> Let's suppose I have an archive of 10k documents, I'd like to extract 
>> the RDFa on them, how can tell upfront that they contain RDFa, without 
>> having to process them all?
>>
>> a: I may have already asked this previously!
>>
>> b: This may be irrelevant for non-SAX based parsers (supposing that the 
>> bulk of the weight would be in syntax->DOM conversion, a step needed 
>> before any "this is RDFa flag" could be detected).
>>
>> Unsure whether this is even worth asking now..
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Nathan
>>
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 15:41:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:51 UTC