- From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:37:47 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Guha Guha <guha@google.com>
- Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
On Oct 25, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> I think efforts to fix RDFa are doomed if they try to be backwards
> compatible with RDFa 1.0 in the sense that any RDFa 1.0 input you can
> construct produces the same triples in an RDFa_fixed processor as it
> would in an RDFa 1.0 processor. If you choose that route, you don't
> get to *remove* any of the badness of RDFa 1.0. And *removing* badness
> of RDFa is the kind of fixing RDFa needs.
strong +1 !
I think the main problems of RDFa, caused by RDF heritage are to repeat aspects defined in the schema/vocabulary in the data markup, like
a) the datatype (if the schema defines the datatype, it is in 99% redundant to repeat it in the instance data)
b) the rel/property distinction (why do I have to look up whether the property is a datatype or object property at markup time if this is defined in the schema).
From the history of RDF being schema-less in the beginning, it is clear why you have datatype and rel/property in RDFa, but I am confident they are now major inhibitors to broad adoption of structured data in HTML markup.
Martin
--------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
e-mail: hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype: mfhepp
twitter: mfhepp
Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
=================================================================
* Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 09:38:20 UTC