- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:37:56 +0000
- To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
- Cc: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "W3C RDFa task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
HI Ben, On 18/01/2008, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote: > Mark Birbeck wrote: > > RDFa also has the advantage of being a standardized microformat, which > > makes it simpler for a developer to maintain and understand a page created > > by someone else. > > Yes! This is the same principle that makes copy-and-paste possible. Definitely...although what struck me in the article was actually the formulation in relation to GRDDL, rather than RDFa, i.e., the notion that the meaning of some mark-up is the result of applying a function that you don't actually know without going to look for it. Or rather, whilst the meaning in RDFa is given by: f(d) where 'd' is the input document, in GRDDL it's given by: f(d, r) where 'r' is a set of rules to apply to the input document. And as you rightly say, this means that whilst with f(d) you can do cut-and-paste from anyone's document, with f(d, r) you can only do cut-and-paste from a document that uses the same rules as your document. Or I suppose you could put that last point slightly differently, and say that to ensure that you get all the data that has been cut-and-pasted, you must add the appropriate rules for each data type that you copied: f(d, r1) f(d, r2) . . . f(d, rn) All of which is completely irrelevant to the task in hand of completing the RDFa syntax document. ;) But interesting nonetheless. Regards, Mark -- Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com standards. innovation.
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 19:38:05 UTC