- From: Thomas Steiner <tsteiner@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 19:55:03 +0300
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
> >> > I do not think so. The API does not necessarily handle Mark-up data only; the parser may get into the store RDF/XML data (yes, those still exist:-) via HTTP, bypassing any markup in a web page... Fair enough. +1 then for Structured Data API! > > Ivan > > >> --Tom >> >> Thank God not sent from a BlackBerry, but from my iPhone >> >> On 01.06.2011, at 15:50, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> Just musing... Discussing with some colleagues I was wondering whether the term 'RDF API' is really the good one, and whether we should not use some more general and not-necessarily-RDF name instead. After all, our idea is that the parser underneath should be able to get microdata or microformats into the triple store, too, but that also mean that the projection interface & friends are not RDF only. What about something like 'Structured Data API'? >>> >>> Just an idea... >>> >>> I. >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html >>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 16:54:41 UTC