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

Re: took a quick stab..

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 19:36:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4E344F1E.8020903@webr3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote:
> I had a quick look at it already (G+...:-) and I think this goes way too far in stripping down RDFa. The removal of @prefix, I think, would be a mistake. So would be the removal of @datatype. 

One could also see it as part way to beefing up microdata :)

> The question is what is what we want to achieve. If the goal is to reproduce the schema.org examples and only marginally more, then of course that is fine, although MD is also fine, isn't it?

not quite, it misses URIs for property names, and isn't very "linked" - 
could certainly be improved somewhat, else there wouldn't be a need for 

> But if I want, say, to mix my personal home page with the generation of a foaf file, and I do more than just trivial statements, then this would break down (and so would MD, essentially). Similarly, if I want to use an HTML file to be both the documentation and the definition of a vocabulary (not a stand alone, isolated vocabulary, but one that would rely and refer to other vocabularies), then again we are out. These are all genuine use cases that RDFa is supposed to serve. MD does not serve those (nor did then intend to, so that is understandable).

"challenge accepted", this evening I'll see about writing up your 
homepage again using this little note, it'll be a good exercise.

As for the point, it's an exercise to see whether merging microdata and 
RDFa is viable or not, or whether there is indeed a two separate sets of 
usually non overlapping use cases which require two different 
technologies. It's a sure fire way to find out :)


Received on Saturday, 30 July 2011 18:37:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:52 UTC