Re: [RDFa] Telecon Monday - 1400 UTC

Michael,

Thanks for your points.

> 1. Looking at the success of microformats, a "smooth transition"/migration
> description is a CSF to RDFa, IMHO. One of the UC should thus be placed in the blog-world,
> showing how different vocabularies can be mixed, running queries on top of the resulting
> RDF graph, etc.

I disagree with this being a critical success factor for *RDFa*. It's
important to find ways to make microformats eventually part of the
semantic web, using approaches like GRDDL. The onus is not entirely on RDFa.

At the syntax level, we won't have full backwards compatibility with
microformats, since microformats are inherently parsed differently
depending on the vocabulary used, meaning that mixing vocabularies
becomes a bit messy. This is precisely where RDFa shines: only one
parser for all vocabularies. So there's an inherent incompatibility here.

Now, maybe you mean that it should "feel similar," in which case I
agree, and believe it is doable.

> 2. Another UC I think is worth it, is the usage of RDFa in a Wiki. Beside the fact that
> already certain Semantic Wiki approaches emerge, a standardised way of using RDFa in Wikis 
> is somehow desirable.

I look forward to hearing more about what you mean here!

> To promote the spread of RDFa, each of us should not only provide "real world" information 
> (homepages, project descriptions, etc.), but also look for opportunities in the closer area. #
> For example, the SWEO-IG [1] recently discussed the usage of RDF in Wikis at their first F2F [2].
> Activities or events like this are what I mean with opportunities ...

Sounds great.

-Ben

Received on Sunday, 3 December 2006 16:38:57 UTC