- From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
- Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 13:07:05 +0200
- To: public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <542FD4D9.8000602@csarven.ca>
On 2014-10-02 00:48, Sarven Capadisli wrote: > On 2014-10-01 21:51, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> On 10/1/14 2:42 PM, Sarven Capadisli wrote: >>> can't use them along with schema.org. >>> >>> I favour plain HTML+CSS+RDFa to get things going e.g.: >>> >>> https://github.com/csarven/linked-research >> >> What about: >> >> HTML+CSS+(RDFa | Microdata | JSON-LD | TURTLE) ? >> >> Basically, we have to get to: >> >> HTML+CSS+(Any RDF Notation) . > > Sure, why not! Actually, I'd like to make a brief comment on this. While I agree with (and enjoy) your eloquent explanations on RDF, Languages, and Notations, and that "any RDF Notation" is entirely reasonable (because we can go from one to another at relative ease), we shouldn't overlook one important dimension: *Visibility* of the data. Perhaps this is left better as a "best practice" than anything else, but in my opinion: RDFa is ideal when dealing with HTML for research knowledge because if applied correctly, it will declare all of the "visible" portions of the research process and knowledge. It is to make the information available as first-class data as opposed to metadata. It is less likely to be left behind or go stale because it is visible to the human at all times. This is in contrast to JSON-LD or Turtle where they will be treated as "dark" metadata, or at least create duplicate information subject to desynchronize. While JSON-LD and Turtle have their strengths, they are unnecessary when concerning the most relevant parts of the document which is already visible, e.g., concepts, hypothesis, methodological steps, variables, figures, tables, evaluation, conclusions. Again, this is not meant to force anyone to use a particular RDF notation. Getting HTML+CSS in the picture is a huge win itself as far as I'm concerned :) Then applying RDF notation is a nice reasonable step forward. * I am conveniently leaving out Microdata from this discussion because I don't feel it is still relevant. -Sarven http://csarven.ca/#i
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Saturday, 4 October 2014 11:07:38 UTC