- From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@semsol.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:44:45 +0100
- To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Hi all, I just had a phone chat with Manu and he suggested that I send my ideas to the list if I want them to be considered. However, the longer I think about the whole situation, the more I feel that there's a need for two separate approaches. Manu said that there are cases that "just don't work" with something like Microdata and that require the full power of RDFa. On the other hand, there is a huge target audience for semantic markup that so far have rejected RDFa and seem to want a simpler solution. I know, I'm an RDFer, but my background when I started exploring RDF in 2003 was exactly that audience mentioned above, web agency and freelance work, and after a looong journey through the RDF spec forest, I'm now slowly returning to my roots, but equipped with a selection of powerful SemWeb technologies that I found to work great for my clients, tools, and projects (all around web site and app development). And for my use cases, Microdata seems to become more convenient than RDFa. So, here is my very personal view of things that I would love the Semantics-in-HTML people within W3C to consider: * align the RDFa attributes to those of Microdata and * disallow hidden links via @resource, * move from ugly to ugly-but-consistent attribute names ;) * make resource description boundaries explicit * disallow CURIEs or similar indirection mechanisms that are tricky in publishing systems based on nested templates and which make JavaScript access more complicated than necessary. * turn RDFa into a syntactic superset of Microdata. * maybe: reduce the HTML part of Microdata to Model, Syntax, and DOM API, let the relevant RDF group contribute to an RDF mapping. * a consistent vocabulary/itemtype approach for Microdata (via XMDP, RDF Schema, or somesuch), possibly with a set of pre-defined vocabs/types like vcard, cal, or dc stuff. * buy my new single! I know, I'm asking too much. Fallback list: * accept that there are different needs, which - as sad as it may be - require two different solutions (with poor me somewhere in between). Cheers, Benji -- Benjamin Nowack http://bnode.org/ http://semsol.com/
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 18:45:12 UTC