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

Re: Facebook - RDFa in Open Graph Protocol

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:49:45 +0200
Message-ID: <x2teb19f3361004211249j2e484b2g29c67da3ee11c6ed@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: public-rdfa <public-rdfa@w3.org>, David Recordon <recordond@gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/4/21 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
>> 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.
> One question I have:
> <html xmlns:og="http://opengraphprotocol.org/schema/">
> <head>
> <title>The Rock (1996)</title>
> <meta property="og:title" content="The Rock" />
> <meta property="og:type" content="movie" />
> <meta property="og:url" content="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117500/" />
> <meta property="og:image" content="http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/rock.jpg"
> />
> ...
> </head>
> ...
> </html>
> should some of the property attributes be rels?

They have chosen to represent URIs as strings, rather than use RDFa's
built-in representation of URIs. This probably isn't ideal from a
modelling perspective, and means they're opting out of the ability to
use relative links in the attribute value. I'd prefer to see typed
links here but I can understand the appeal of this current highly
regular notation. I'm not losing sleep over this. I think the biggest
shortfall is not making more explicit use of typing, but hey, step by


Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 20:16:23 UTC

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