- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:49:45 +0200
- 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 step! cheers, Dan
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 20:16:23 UTC