Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation

I agree that both is better, but there is a catch.

As did Toby with his system, in http://t4gm.info, I serve up both
XHTML+RDFa and perform content negotiation, generating triples in the
MIME type expected by a given RDF-accepting user agent by redirecting
the given static XHTML+RDFa page through the RDFa Distiller service.
The main issue with this, however, was configuring this in Apache on
the hosting provider I use resulted in a solution based on .htaccess
that does not respect quality values. I am not currently aware of a
working solution to this problem.

Doing content negotiation in a completely correct manner presupposes a
level of expertise and control over the server side that is not
available to everyone who could be fruitfully producing XHTML+RDFa,
serving it up with a vanilla HTTP server or embedding it in a hosted
blog post. - cheers, BPA

Bradley P. Allen
http://bradleypallen.org
+1 310 951 4300



On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> Bill Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Thanks everyone who replied.
>>
>> It seems that there's a lot of support for the RDFa route in that (perhaps
>> not statistically significant) sample of opinion.  But to summarise my
>> understanding of your various bits of advice:  since there aren't currently
>> so many applications out there consuming RDF, a good RDF publisher should
>> provide as many options as possible.
>
> Amen!
>>
>> Therefore rather than deciding for either RDFa or a content-negotiated
>> approach, why not do both (and provide a dump file too)
>
> Exactly!
>
> RDFa vs Content Negotiation is a misnomer re. Web Architecture :-)
>
> Kingsley
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen       Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> President & CEO OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 23:47:56 UTC