- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:06:36 -0400
- To: public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <517ED2CC.4010407@openlinksw.com>
On 4/29/13 3:23 PM, Sarven Capadisli wrote: > On 04/29/2013 09:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> On 4/29/13 1:29 PM, Andrea Splendiani wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> ok. Let's see if we can offer xhtml+RDFa as an additional format, and >>> see how people react. I'll spread the idea a bit. >> >> Why stop at xhtml+RDFa when you also have: >> >> 1. html+microdata >> 2. html+turtle -- where you use <script/> for embedding Turtle. >> >> Note, picking winners (overtly or covertly) is always a shortcut to >> politically induced inertia. It's best to do the complete opposite which >> has the net effect of demonstrating the innate dexterity of the RDF. > > Sure, why not. We can do all of that. Not the challenge. > > Will you get the ISWC organizers to accept *HTML*? If I had such influence, of course :-) > That's what I would love to hear. You heard it now. > The rest is really details. We can have 20 different machine readable > versions of the document if we want. Lets have 1 that's acceptable to > get things rolling! Yes, but why do you think xhtml+rdfa is the one? My point is that we don't know "the one", because that shouldn't matter in a world of URIs and RDF based Linked Data :-) > > -Sarven > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 20:06:58 UTC