W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > April 2007

[RDFa] answer to Jan's point about Use Case #9

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:38:13 -0400
Message-ID: <461A4FD5.7090907@adida.net>
To: Jan Henke <jan.henke@deri.org>
CC: 'Thomas Baker' <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, 'SWD WG' <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Jan Henke wrote:
> Dear Ben,
> 
> to me Use Case #9 - Publishing a RDF Vocabulary creates a slightly strange
> taste of not really following the spirit of user driven design. Aren't RDF
> and RDFa to close to each other as that one using the other could be
> regarded as a justifying use case? 

Hi Jan,

Apologies for taking a while to respond to your email.

I see your worry. However, I also see great value in this use case.
Consider the job of an RDF vocabulary manager. Currently, he must
generate an RDF/XML expression of his vocabulary, and provide a separate
"human-readable" description. That latter description is often in HTML.
Keeping the two in sync can be a bit painful. Wouldn't it be nice if the
vocabulary manager could maintain one document, the HTML human-readable
description, and annotate it so it can *be* the vocabulary, too?

In that sense, this use-case is RDF-driven, which does set it apart from
most of the other use cases, which are HTML-driven and happen to use
RDF. I see this as the everlasting "dilemma" of RDFa. Is the goal of
RDFa to nicely present a chunk of RDF, or is it to sprinkle structure
into an HTML document? I think it's a bit of both, which is why I'm okay
with this use case.

Let me know what you think,

-Ben
Received on Monday, 9 April 2007 14:36:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:28 GMT