Re: Schema.org in RDF ...

On 6/3/11 10:26 PM, Brian Peterson wrote:
> Personally, I find Microdata more complex that RDFa, but only after
> understanding RDFa well enough to know how to make it simple.

Ultimately it really doesn't matter. Don't be distracted by syntaxes for 
link based data representation.

> But Microdata
> is crummy, crummy at doing what it does (not to mention what it cannot do).

It all depends on who you are, your needs, and your data construction 
skills etc..

> It perverts HTML attributes my making one value-less and making order of
> attributes significant.
>
> Why would Google, Bing, and Yahoo! choose Microdata rather than doing what
> Facebook did and use a simpler RDFa?

They're all pursuing their own interests. The great thing about this 
pursuit is that structured data is the common end product. Of course, 
semantic fidelity varies, but at this stage said fidelity is less 
important than mass contributions (esp. from behemoths)  to the 
burgeoning Web of Linked Data :-)


Kingsley
> Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lod-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lod-request@w3.org] On Behalf
> Of Michael Hausenblas
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 5:06 PM
> To: Linked Data community
> Subject: Schema.org in RDF ...
>
>
> http://schema.rdfs.org
>
> ... is now available - we're sorry for the delay ;)
>
> Cheers,
> 	Michael
> --
> Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
> 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
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Received on Saturday, 4 June 2011 22:15:59 UTC