W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Facebook - RDFa in Open Graph Protocol

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:56:28 +0100
Message-ID: <r2j640dd5061004211256q7592d094uab1573ffd34b87b3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: public-rdfa <public-rdfa@w3.org>, David Recordon <recordond@gmail.com>
Hi Dan,

Great announcement!

You seem to have sent this to the wrong list though:

> I'd
> urge you all to go gently on that front for now, and focus instead
> more on how we can improve RDFa tooling and specs than on lobbying for
> improvements.

RDFa enthusiasts have always been supportive of anyone looking to use RDFa.

You may be thinking back to when Google got a bit of a hard time when
they made their announcements about using RDFa, but the criticism they
received was from...well...from RDFers who didn't recognise a
gift-horse when it's galloping towards them, it's rider blowing a
bugle.

Yes, I know...I sound like a grumpy-old b*stard. But things like that
lodge in the mind....

Great news though. :)

Regards,

Mark

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
> So this just got a high-profile launch at Facebook's F8 conference a
> couple hours ago -
>
> http://opengraphprotocol.org/
> http://developers.facebook.com/docs/opengraph
>
> They're using RDFa, putting structured data into Web sites to sit
> alongside a Facebook "Likes" button, so that the topic of the page
> (movie, restaurant, book, whatever...) can be understood by apps
> downstream dealing with the social data. The RDFa is pretty basic, and
> I warned David that there's a good chance they'll be jumped upon by
> 100s of well-meaning semweb advocates arguing that they should be
> using more existing vocabs, different syntax structures, etc etc. I'd
> urge you all to go gently on that front for now, and focus instead
> more on how we can improve RDFa tooling and specs than on lobbying for
> improvements.
>
> >From what I've seen RDFa's graph data model is a good fit for what
> they're trying to express (i.e. things and properties), the use of
> RDFa in the HTML header makes sense given the desire for fairly
> regular data that doesn't get trashed with every site redesign, and
> the current use of <meta> isn't quite ideal since properties have an
> indirect meaning along the lines of "the director (of the film this
> page is about)", "the cuisine (of the bar this page is about)" etc.
> but I think is a fine start. This modelling might be quirky but it's
> their choice, and perhaps a step towards something more expressively
> graphy. We'll see. Looking to the future I hope we can see some of the
> deployment pragmatics from this work feed into the RDFa 1.1 design...
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 19:57:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:15:06 UTC