- From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 19:28:41 +0100
- To: public-lod@w3.org
On 2018-03-15 19:49, Jean-Marc Vanel wrote: > You're right about RDFa , > but since not everyone does serve RDFa, there is a need for a RDF browser. A need for who or what exactly? Please describe the use case. The website/service already does conneg for HTML (without any RDF embedded) and RDF/XML. It has some sort of a templating mechanism to at least output different representations (aside: at the moment the content is not equivalent in both of those representations). In any case, this is a matter of updating the existing HTML template to include RDFa alongside existing human visible content. 6 RDF browsers were originally linked. None are currently functional. Do you think that a yet another round of RDF browsers are going to resolve this issue, indefinitely? Right now the following URLs are floating out there: http://km.aifb.kit.edu/projects/numbers/n7 http://km.aifb.kit.edu/projects/numbers/web/n7 http://km.aifb.kit.edu/projects/numbers/data/n7 There is virtually no added benefit to managing all of those URI spaces, where one would reach the same goal. That's a far more complex system design than it needs to be, both to publish and to consume. > Moreover, Linked_Data_Browser allows one to browse on the real RDF URI's > , whereas the RDFa pages are more an artifact on the view side (there > can be no relation between URI's exported by a RDFa page and the page URL). Define "real". Whatever that can be represented in Turtle can be in HTML+RDFa. Provide a simple Turtle example and I'll show the equivalent in RDFa, and you can get the isomorphic graph back, and then in Turtle. > Also, I wanted to stress that RDFa is *not the only way* to offer a > human readable view of RDF data . HTML + RDF + Turtle, etc, *content > negotiation* is another way , more in the line of Tim's original view of > the Semantic Web. For instance , the URL that I mentioned in this thread, > http://semantic-forms.cc:9112/ldp/semantic_forms > <http://semantic-forms.cc:9112/ldp/semantic_forms> > can provide Turtle , RDF/XML, JSON-LD or HTML , depending on HTTP > "Accept" header. > dbPedia and Wikidata also do this . Conneg is orthogonal. No one suggested RDFa in HTML is the only way. My whole point was about describing a simple(st) system that can serve for humans and machines, which happens to be possible via single URL. No out of band requirements to discover or manipulate the data. Turtle or JSON-LD data islands in HTML tend to duplicate information, and are hidden from human view. Hence, they require additional processing, like relying on JavaScript or a supplemental server algorithm to build a "human view" (HTML) eventually. Not to mention that the processor instructions are not as clear for JSON-LD/Turtle in HTML as it is for RDFa. There is also the rabbit-hole of handling bnodes and namespaces across multiple HTML script blocks. So, why should the server bother to output a Turtle or JSON-LD dump if it can be equally said to output RDFa in HTML? There are use cases to include Turtle or JSON-LD, but I just don't think that's the case for this particular website. -Sarven http://csarven.ca/#i
Received on Friday, 16 March 2018 18:29:09 UTC