W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > site-comments@w3.org > October 2009

Re: New W3C Web Site Launched

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:26:03 -0400
Message-ID: <1fc9c2ff0910141226nfadf9bfs64961628fe4b6c3d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>
Cc: ij@w3.org, michael.hausenblas@deri.org, site-comments@w3.org, chairs@w3.org, w3c-ac-forum@w3.org
In my view this position is overly limited. There are plenty of
industrial contexts where publishing RDF over HTTP is sufficient;
others where over SPARQL is the right thing; and yet others where
embedding in HTML via RDFa is the way to go.

It's simply not possible to say, simpliciter, that one or the other is
universally preferred. Frankly, that reflects either a very limited
understanding of the range of use cases or a failure to acknowledge
that *all* Web technologies -- semantic and otherwise -- have a life
and utility on networks other than the one public Web. I can
appreciate Google having some kind of preference for "the one public
Web", but other member orgs work in other environments where RDFa
isn't the best choice.

Cheers,
Kendall Clark

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:14 PM, T.V Raman <raman@google.com> wrote:
>
> No, publishing the RDF directly is already an acknowledged
> failure in my opinion as far as reaching a wider Web audience is
> concerned. The RDFA work was an attempt at remedying this -- its
> detractors will tell you readily that it's not suitable
> either. But then we digress.
>
> I think the overall concensus is that given the scrapy
> "architecture" of the Web today, having  metadata available in
> html is more likely to get scraped and used.
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 19:27:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 October 2012 16:21:32 GMT