- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:59:43 +0100
- To: <bill.roberts@planet.nl>
- CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Bill, It will certainly not surprise you that I'd suggest to go for (technically speaking) linked data with RDFa. However, we have sort of started to collect a checklist you might want to review [1]. > Anyone care to argue for one approach or the other? I suppose the answer may > well be "it depends" :-) But if so, what does it depend on? Can depend, in my experience, for example on: + granularity (fine-grained, multidimensional statistical data vs. DC author/title thing) + dynamics (is it a one-shot or does the data change with time like on a blog, etc.) Cheers, Michael [1] http://ld2sd.deri.org/lod-ng-tutorial/#checklist [2] http://linkeddata.deri.ie/services -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html > From: <bill.roberts@planet.nl> > Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:09:32 +0200 > To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org> > Subject: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation > Resent-From: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org> > Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:45:59 +0000 > > I've been trying to weigh up the pros and cons of these two approaches to > understand more clearly when you might want to use each. I hope that the list > members will be able to provide me with the benefit of their experience and > insight! > > So the situation is that I have some information on a topic and I want to make > it available both in machine readable form and in human readable form, for > example a company wanting to publish information on its products, or a > government department wanting to publish some statistics. > > I can either: > 1) include 'human' and 'machine' representations in the same web page using > RDFa > 2) have an HTML representation and a separate RDF/XML representation (or N3 or > whatever) and decide which to provide via HTTP content negotiation. > > So which should I use? I suppose it depends on how the information will be > produced, maintained and consumed. Some generic requirements/wishes: > > - I only want to have one place where the data is managed. > - I want people to be able to browse around a nicely formatted representation > of the information, ie a regular web page, probably incorporating all sorts of > other stuff as well as the data itself. > - I don't want to type lots of XHTML or XML. > - I want the data to be found and used by search engines and aggregators. > > > The approach presented by Halb, Raimond and Hausenblas ( > http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2008/papers/06-halb-raimond-building-linked-d > ata.pdf) seems attractive: to summarise crudely, auto-generate some RDFa from > your database, but provide an RDF/XML dump too. > > On the other hand I find that RDFa leads to rather messy markup - I prefer the > 'cleanliness' of the separate representations. > > For any non-trivial amount of data, then we will need a templating engine of > some sort for either approach. I suppose what may tip the balance is that > Yahoo and Google are starting to make use of RDFa, but AFAIK they are not > (yet) doing anything with "classic" content-negotiated linked data. > > Anyone care to argue for one approach or the other? I suppose the answer may > well be "it depends" :-) But if so, what does it depend on? > > Thanks in advance > > Bill Roberts
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 13:00:23 UTC