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: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:42:20 +0100
Message-ID: <ed77aa9f0807140242r3be86adcg18cc04722b07a964@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Hugh Glaser" <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>

Hi Hugh,

> 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.

Obviously it depends on what you want to happen to your data.

If you're publishing from one of your servers to another, or using
some closed system, then obviously there is no reason to do more work
than necessary.

But if you are trying to publish metadata that will be consumed by
other services, then RDFa is an option that is attracting wider
interest. I'm working on a project to allow UK public sector jobs to
be published for wider consumption, and I can tell you, I'm not
looking at RDF/XML!

I'm looking primarily at RDFa in web-pages, a little Microformats for
compatibility with Google's social network processing and client-side
tools like Operator, and then Atom feeds with embedded RDFa for
consumption by services like SearchMonkey.


> 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.

I can't comment on that example, but ultimately there is no need for a
URL for an HTML+RDFa page to be any different to a normal one.

(Although I might have missed your point, here....)

Regards,

Mark

-- 
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com

http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck

webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)
Received on Monday, 14 July 2008 09:42:56 UTC

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