- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:23:02 +0000
- To: public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
With RDFa maturing (RDFa 1.1, particularly Lite), I wanted to ask here about attitudes to RDFa. I have acquired the impression somehow that in the Linked Data scene, people lean more towards the classic 'a doc for the humans, another for the machines' partitioning model. Perhaps this is just a consequence of history; digging around some old rdfweb/foaf discussions[1] I realise just how far we've come. RDFa wasn't an option for a long time; but it is now. So - questions. How much of the linked data cloud is expressed in some variant HTML+RDFa alongside RDF/XML, Turtle etc.? When/if you do so, are you holding some data back and keeping it only in the machine-oriented dumps, or including it in the RDFa? Are you finding it hard to generate RDFa from triple datasets because it's 'supposed' to be intermingled with human text? What identifiers (if any) are you assigning to real-world entities? Dataset maintainers ... as you look to the future is RDFa in your planning? Did/does Microdata confuse the picture? I'm curious where we are with this... Dan [1] http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-dev/2000-September/004222.html http://web.archive.org/web/20011123075822/http://rdfwebring.org/2000/09/rdfweblog/example.html
Received on Friday, 18 January 2013 10:23:29 UTC