W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Video on RDFa in Drupal - examples and use cases

From: Semantics-ProjectParadigm <metadataportals@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <631252.74465.qm@web45511.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
To: Nicolas Chauvat <nicolas.chauvat@logilab.fr>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Dear Nicolas,

I did check out CubicWeb.Org some time ago. What I was referring to is a general mainstream CMS.

I will review the CubicWeb.Org documentation again. 

Maybe it is time someone started a SemanticCMSMatrix site to compare the semantic web technology enabled CMSs already out there.

Milton Ponson
GSM: +297 747 8280
Rainbow Warriors Core Foundation
PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
www.rainbowwarriors.net
Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide
www.projectparadigm.info
NGO-Opensource: Creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide for Project Paradigm
www.ngo-opensource.org
MetaPortal: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development
www.metaportal.info
SemanticWebSoftware, part of NGO-Opensource to enable SW technologies in the Metaportal project
www.semanticwebsoftware.info


--- On Sun, 3/22/09, Nicolas Chauvat <nicolas.chauvat@logilab.fr> wrote:

From: Nicolas Chauvat <nicolas.chauvat@logilab.fr>
Subject: Re: Video on RDFa in Drupal - examples and use cases
To: "Semantics-ProjectParadigm" <metadataportals@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Date: Sunday, March 22, 2009, 11:02 PM


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 07:52:45AM -0700, Semantics-ProjectParadigm wrote:

> We do agree with you that most CMSs are poor products in terms of software
> engineering.
>
> The next best thing does not exist yet, unfortunately.

http://www.cubicweb.org would like to be the next best thing and is
looking for feedback and new users (it is licensed under the LGPL).

I claim that we did our homework before going public with this
framework and correctly engineered the thing. Where do you want me to
start to try to prove that claim? Would pointing you to the blog_ and
the doc_ help to get the discussion started or would it be better to
try to tease you with a direct link to the schema_ and its OWL_ view?
Another way to raise people's interest might be to have them use the
rdf views, like sioc_ or doap_, don't you think? Would they rather
peek at the list of components_ before they ask for new tickets in the
issue tracker_? I'm not sure where to start... :)

... _blog: http://www.cubicweb.org/blog
... _doc: http://www.cubicweb.org/doc/en/
... _schema: http://www.cubicweb.org/schema
... _OWL: http://www.cubicweb.org/view?vid=owl
... _sioc: http://www.cubicweb.org/blogentry/212906?vid=sioc
... _doap: http://www.cubicweb.org/project/cubicweb?vid=doap
... _components: http://www.cubicweb.org/project?vtitle=All+cubicweb+projects
... _tracker: http://www.cubicweb.org/project/cubicweb

-- 
Nicolas Chauvat

logilab.fr - services en informatique scientifique et gestion de connaissances  
Received on Sunday, 22 March 2009 23:26:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:28 GMT