- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:34:38 +0200
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: "Toby A Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
I'm going to grumble a little further down this thread, please let strike me a positive note here first (well, 90% at least) : 2008/9/12 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>: > > Toby A Inkster wrote: > >> RDFa is "just" a representation of RDF. And microformats can already be >> parsed as RDF - that's the point of GRDDL. Despite the fact that XSLT is a >> horrible, horrible abomination, I think that GRDDL, not RDFa, is probably >> the best hope for bringing microformats into the "upper case Semantic Web". >> >> I believe Microformats and RDFa can happily co-exist. +1 They both have >> different syntaxes, but once you've converted them both to the abstract RDF >> model, you can use pretty simple rules to combine the data from each. Yup, just merge subgraphs. The >> aim to strive towards should be: different syntaxes, separate parsing >> models, but at the end one data model. Absolutely. > That's exactly my view too. > > I guess in practice we'll also need an "HTML Tidy" step to get things into a > GRDDL-ready markup. Pragmatically now, yes, but looking ahead relatively arbitrary clean-up algorithms break the direct producer-consumer communication path for data. I don't personally think that will scale, given the accumulation of provenance information/multiple graphs (if you want to trust the stuff) or the Chinese Whispers effect if you don't track it. Errors are inevitable, but I believe we should lean towards accurate communications when given the choice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com ~ http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/this_weeks_semantic_web/
Received on Sunday, 14 September 2008 23:35:14 UTC