- From: Giovanni Tummarello <g.tummarello@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:16:00 +0000
- To: "Toby A Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "Benjamin Nowack" <bnowack@semsol.com>
Hi Toby, i am trying to understand its potential use at high level. While the idea has an appeal, i'd be inclined to say that while you might want to interchange CSS, fiddle with them or whatever ,the semantics of the outputted HTML is OTOH already decided by the logic of the application: output content and semantics are not two separated/ interchangable aspects. If that's the case, then RDFa suffices as that and i'd be scared to propose yet another RDF serialization mechanism. But i might be disregarding some use case.. would you have some counterexamples where it is useful to have such extra layer of indirection between outputted content and its semantic specifications? Of course it is as you say much easier than XSLT for RDFication purposes, so yes it could probably be very useful to hack RDFication scrapers for sites that do not embed RDFa. So my suggestion (if the above is correct) would be to to market it as such, e.g. to clearly state that it is not meant to be used as a substitute for RDFa. Giovanni On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@semsol.com> wrote: > > Oh, I like that idea. Nifty! > > Toby A Inkster wrote: >> >> Draft specification >> http://buzzword.org.uk/2008/rdf-ease/spec >> > >
Received on Monday, 29 December 2008 18:16:35 UTC