- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:27:46 +0200
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, public-rdfa-wg <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
2012/4/20 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>: > > On Apr 20, 2012, at 15:56 , Gregg Kellogg wrote: >> >>> (You should really try out the bookmarklet [1] in a Firefox (ideally >>> with the JSONView [2] plugin installed). :) I tried it on your own >>> FOAF page for instance, which is rich in data and really interesting >>> to examine this way. (Note that @xmlns:* aren't captured yet though, >>> so the result here isn't really correct.)) >> >> Running in-browser, access to xmlns* might be challenging. >> > > Actually, you should not use that foaf file, it is rdfa 1.0. I have > > http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf-rdfa-1.1/foaf.html > > which I keep hidden for now, and I intend to change my core foaf file to this one when 1.1 is a rec. Ah, nice. With that one the output looks even better. :) >>> It should be noted that, of course, graph cycles aren't possible to >>> follow directly in a tree. So any time a reference to an already >>> created resource description (i.e. a JSON object @id:d with the >>> resource IRI) is referenced, I just put a link there (an object with >>> just the @id). >> >> Perfect! This is what framing is for, to turn such references into object embeds. > > However, about framing... how heavyweight is that framing implementation? The huge advantage of Niklas' implementation is if it is as lightweight as possible... Yes, I think we're on the same page here (see my full reply to Gregg for my detailed perspective). Best regards, Niklas
Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 15:28:45 UTC