W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > April 2007

Re: SWEO / FAQ comments

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 13:54:31 +0200
Message-ID: <461391F7.3030609@w3.org>
To: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
Cc: public-sweo-ig@w3.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Benjamin Nowack wrote:
> 
> General impression: Wow! I found some of the individual 
>


And wow! for the review:-) Thanks a lot Benjamin. I have only a few
comments below, all the other comments have been simply taken over...

Thanks again

Ivan



[snip]
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#Folskonomi
> s/folksonomies (microformats, tagging, …)/folksonomies, microformats, tagging,
> …/ (as MFs are independent of folksonomies)
> it is necessary *to* add additional
> s/keywordsearch/keyword search/ or keyword-search?
> The third paragraph starts with "There are, of course, other differences.
> Microformats ...". It isn't clear which differences are meant, those 
> between MFs and ontologies, or between MFs and folksonomies?
>> "developed very quickly by communities"
> It's actually faster to create an RDF vocab than to go through the MF
> process. Folksonomies can be developed very quickly, but they don't 
> tend to be small.

Well, if I compare a hCard to, say, a music ontology, they are smaller.
And the comparison of the speed is not on the process; because the
microformat vocabularies are relatively simple, it is usually relatively
straightforward to define them technically, unlike, say, and OWL ontology.

> 
> And there is eRDF which also allows to add semantic markup to HTML.
> 

This is how the last paragraph looks like now:

[[[
Note that the GRDDL Working Group has developed a “bridge” to the
microformats approach; it defines a general procedure whereby
microformats stored in an XHTML file can be transformed into RDF
on–the–fly. Also, the Semantic Web Deployment group’s work on RDFa
develops an XHTML1.1 module that gives the possibility to use virtually
any RDF vocabularies as annotations of the XHTML content; a bit like
microformats with somewhat more rigor and a better way of integrating
different vocabularies within the same document. Finally, eRDF
(developed by Talis) offers a formalism somewhere between the two: one
can add general RDF data to an (X)HTML page without the need for a new
module, although with restrictions on the type of RDF vocabularies that
can be used this way.
]]]

[snip]
> I don't know where to squeeze it in exactly, but I think one huge
> add-on of RDF is the ability to easily re-use combined (= enriched) 
> data as input for further applications ("mashup chaining"). This
> bcomes possible as RDF is a data technology while Web 2.0 focuses
> on APIs.
>

I have added, in the Web 2.0 section, the following paragraph:

[[[
In many cases, using RDF-based techniques makes the mashing up process
easier, mainly when data collected by one application is reused by
another one somewhere down the line. The general nature of RDF makes
this “mashup chaining” straightforward, which is not always the case for
simpler Web 2.0 applications.
]]]


>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#Does
> "stored in, say, in RDF/XML" => "stored in, say, RDF/XML"
> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#pout
> s/violating the the validity/violating the validity/
> s/microformat approach/microformats approach/
> And eRDF allows to add a usable subset of RDF to XHTML w/o 
> breaking validity.
> 

This is how it looks like now:

[[[
Unfortunately, it is currently not possible to incorporate full RDF into
XHTML without violating the validity of the resulting XHTML, except for
the usage of the meta and the link elements in the header. The best
solution is to store the RDF separately and use the URI-s to refer to
the XHTML page and the link element in the XHTML page to refer to the
RDF content. However, work is going on for a better integration of RDF
into documents. The GRDDL Working Group has recently developed a
“bridge” to the microformats approach, and the Semantic Web Deployment
group’s work on RDFa develops an additional XHTML1.1 module that gives
the possibility to use virtually any RDF vocabularies as annotations of
the XHTML content. Finally, eRDF (developed by Talis) offers a formalism
somewhere between the two: one can add general RDF data to an (X)HTML
page without problems with validity, although with restrictions on the
type of RDF vocabularies that can be used this way.
]]]

> 
> 
> Ben
> 
> --
> Benjamin Nowack
> http://bnode.org/
> 
> 

- --

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGE5H3dR3hQzQ/Gj0RAnwNAJ9feY9FFNCmsB6lrVC7TnGFR+k4JQCbBXO+
QFOl2VKytHu3s4friPE2QsQ=
=fIGB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 11:54:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:37 GMT