W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2008

Re: RDFa + RDF/XML Considered Harmful? (was RE: Ordnance Survey data as Linked Data)

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:27:47 +0100
To: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C4A0DAA3.25CCD%hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

Thanks Tom.
Er, yes.
I was puzzled by the suggestion that I might duplicate the RDF in the page that did a simple html rendering of the underlying RDF I was trying to publish.
I would have thought that this is actually a Bad Thing, rather than a Good Thing.

And if we are talking about an RDF browser (as our pages are, albeit with a clean URI that doesn't have the browser URI in it), getting it to include the RDF as RDFa or whatever is even stranger; after all
http://demo.openlinksw.com/rdfbrowser2/?uri%5B%5D=http%3A%2F%2Fos.rkbexplorer.com%2Fdescription%2Fosr7000000000017765
doesn't include the substantive RDF as RDFa, (or have a link rel to http://os.rkbexplorer.com/data/osr7000000000017765 for that matter) which would be the equivalent.

On 14/07/2008 09:55, "Tom Heath" <Tom.Heath@talis.com> wrote:



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lod-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-lod-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
> Sent: 12 July 2008 21:43
> To: afraz.jaffri@tiscali.co.uk
> Cc: public-lod@w3.org; semantic-web@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Ordnance Survey data as Linked Data (RE: How do
> you deprecate URIs? Re: OWL-DL and linked data)
>
>
> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
> I also forgot to mention obvous use of RDFa in the HTML doc
> which broadens the range of rdf aware user agents tha
> commence RDF discovery from HTML

Question: is it worth creating a duplicate RDF graph by using RDFa in
HTML documents, when there is also RDF/XML available just one <link
rel=".../> away, and at a distinct URI? Doesn't this RDFa + RDF/XML
pattern complicate the RDF-consumption picture in general if we assume
agents will want to do something with data aggregated from a number of
sources/locations, i.e. doesn't it increase the cost of removing
duplicate statements by creating more in the first place? Does it not
also complicate the picture of making provenance statements using named
graphs, if the subject of the triple could be both an HTML document and
an RDF graph?

Dunno the answers to these questions, but interested to hear what people
think.

Tom.

--
Tom Heath
Researcher
Platform Team
Talis Information Ltd
T: 0870 400 5000
W: http://www.talis.com/platform
Received on Monday, 14 July 2008 09:28:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:20:40 UTC