- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:34:37 +0200
- To: bill.roberts@planet.nl
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-lod@w3.org
Ivan, two words : more python! 2009/6/24 <bill.roberts@planet.nl>: > Ivan > > Thanks very much. I'll take a look at your python scripts, which should be > very useful. > > Cheers > > Bill > ________________________________ > Van: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] > Verzonden: wo 24-6-2009 9:14 > Aan: Bill Roberts > CC: public-lod@w3.org > Onderwerp: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation > > Bill, > > a while ago I wrote a blog on how I do it on the Semantic Web Activity > home page: > > http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/05/using_rdfa_to_add_information.html > > the blog is from the early days of RDFa, some of the specific issues may > be different today (see below), but the overall line, I believe, works > well. It may be helpful... > > What is different or should be different: > > - The .htaccess example refers to the RDFa distiller at W3C (which, > well, I wrote, so of course I had to eat my own dogfood:-). With the > increasing popularity of RDFa our system guys have already complained > about sudden server request surges on that service. Ie, although it is > fine to use the service as it is in the .htaccess example (with full > URI-s, though) if you (or anybody else) uses it with a large number of > calls, it is better to install the service locally an run it from there > (it is a bunch of python files, it should not be difficult to install it). > > (Of course, an alternative is to run the script only once, when updating > the html file. But, if not done manually, this needs some server magic...) > > - I use http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ as an example, though _that_ one has > changed a little bit and is more complicated today (Essentially, the > HTML file has become too large and I had to cut into several files, so I > have to merge the RDF graphs. This is something different...) > > Cheers > > Ivan > > > 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. >> >> Therefore rather than deciding for either RDFa or a content-negotiated >> approach, why not do both (and provide a dump file too) >> >> Cheers >> >> Bill >> >> >> > > -- > > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 12:35:18 UTC