- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:55:21 +0200
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: public-rdfa <public-rdfa@w3.org>, David Recordon <recordond@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <p2h9178f78c1004211255j683701eajd9a22cacdaba803b@mail.gmail.com>
2010/4/21 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Melvin Carvalho > <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2010/4/21 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> > >> > >> So this just got a high-profile launch at Facebook's F8 conference a > >> couple hours ago - > >> > >> http://opengraphprotocol.org/ > >> http://developers.facebook.com/docs/opengraph > >> > >> They're using RDFa, putting structured data into Web sites to sit > >> alongside a Facebook "Likes" button, so that the topic of the page > >> (movie, restaurant, book, whatever...) can be understood by apps > >> downstream dealing with the social data. The RDFa is pretty basic, and > >> I warned David that there's a good chance they'll be jumped upon by > >> 100s of well-meaning semweb advocates arguing that they should be > >> using more existing vocabs, different syntax structures, etc etc. I'd > >> urge you all to go gently on that front for now, and focus instead > >> more on how we can improve RDFa tooling and specs than on lobbying for > >> improvements. > > > > One question I have: > > > > <html xmlns:og="http://opengraphprotocol.org/schema/"> > > <head> > > <title>The Rock (1996)</title> > > <meta property="og:title" content="The Rock" /> > > <meta property="og:type" content="movie" /> > > <meta property="og:url" content="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117500/" > /> > > <meta property="og:image" content=" > http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/rock.jpg" > > /> > > ... > > </head> > > ... > > </html> > > > > should some of the property attributes be rels? > > They have chosen to represent URIs as strings, rather than use RDFa's > built-in representation of URIs. This probably isn't ideal from a > modelling perspective, and means they're opting out of the ability to > use relative links in the attribute value. I'd prefer to see typed > links here but I can understand the appeal of this current highly > regular notation. I'm not losing sleep over this. I think the biggest > shortfall is not making more explicit use of typing, but hey, step by > step! > Agree that there are some shortcomings, but on first impressions, this is looks like a big step forward. Well done Facebook! > > cheers, > > Dan >
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 19:55:50 UTC