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: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:57:10 +0100
Message-Id: <140A2476-9ACD-492A-8B99-0C55A758E6E0@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, public-lod@w3.org, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: Taylor Cowan <taylor_cowan@yahoo.com>

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.

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.

Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 12:54:58 UTC

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