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

Re: SWEO / FAQ comments

From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:26:25 +0200
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: public-sweo-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <PM-GA.20070404152625.EA0F4.1.1D@192.168.27.2>


sounds all great to me.

<> dc:creator [ sweo:thumbsUpFor <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ> ] .

benjamin ;)




On 04.04.2007 13:54:31, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
>-----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 13:28:13 GMT

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