Dan Brickley wrote: > Ivan Herman wrote: >> >> Dan Brickley wrote: >>>> However, one thing _really_ bugs me: Our nice (X)HTML+RDFa documents >>>> are >>>> ignored by 'Semantic Web search engines' as ptsw [2] or sindice [3]. >>>> People, move on! >>> Can I put in a vote for W3C to spend some effort on updating the RDF >>> Validator (http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator)? I reckon that, alongside >>> the syntax checker at validator.w3.org, will go a long way to pushing >>> these developments out into wider usage. >>> >> >> I am not sure what the current state of the problems are. My foaf.html >> file validates! > > http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/ARPServlet?URI=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ivan-herman.net%2Ffoaf.html&PARSE=Parse+URI%3A+&TRIPLES_AND_GRAPH=PRINT_TRIPLES&FORMAT=PNG_EMBED > > > Error: Your document does not contain any RDF statement. > > "RDF Validator" vs "RDFa mode of validator.w3.org" confusion? I was > talking about the one that extracts triples and draws pretty graphs... > Ah! Sorry, yes, I misunderstood you. Yes, on long term adding those to the RDF validator would be good. (Both to the GRDDL and the RDFa stuff, actually). But, of course, what that requires is that a reliable RDFa would be around. Ivan > Dan -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Saturday, 25 August 2007 08:30:15 UTC