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: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:58:16 -0700
Message-ID: <487B6988.8080307@openlinksw.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>

Hugh Glaser wrote:
> 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.
>   
Hugh,

I knew this was coming.

Please practice what I say and not the current state of our user agents :-)

I prefer to make suggestions that go beyond what we've implemented. Yes, 
of course, I advocate "dog-fooding" but I also have to deal with the 
realities of development and product release cycles etc..

Our agents will be fixed in line with my suggestions, for sure. 

My key point is this: we are a  community of knowledgeable folks who 
need to take on the the burden of unobtrusive injection of  RDF into the 
Web. We cannot expect this to happen outside the community at this 
stage. Using HTML as the vehicle for RDF exposure is a big deal and 
offers immense value. RDFa is a major contribution to the whole RDF 
exposure puzzle, and this is one area where it's value is crystal clear  
(imho).

Kingsley
> 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
>
>
>
>
>   


-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Monday, 14 July 2008 14:58:59 UTC

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