- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:57:10 +0100
- To: Taylor Cowan <taylor_cowan@yahoo.com>
- Cc: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, public-lod@w3.org, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 15 Jul 2008, at 13:40, Taylor Cowan wrote: > An important difference between embedded RDF/XML and RDFa is that > RDFa and the xhtml can use the same "literals". ? That seems true for RDF/XML as well. Hence parseType=Literal. You can also hide literals, hence property attributes. > In other words, the text viewed by the human, and the text stored > as the literal object of a triple is the same. An option in RDF/XML. > xhtml has the <meta/> tags which are pretty much ignored because > they often have nothing to do with the real content of the page. > > If I have a web page of for sale listings, the RDFa isn't meta-data > about the listings, it is the data. It's just data-data, the data > we really want, not extra data we thought to hide from human eyes. > And that has implications for how useful, trustable, and spamable > the content may be. > > And in the cases where the RDFa adds semantics on top of what the > human sees, it's position carefully in place with the xhtml it > modifies, not at the top or bottom of the document, relagated to > 2nd class "meta-data" status. [snip] Sorry, I don't understand your point. I've no doubt that embedded RDF/ XML is nastier for several reasons, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 12:54:58 UTC