- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:38:13 -0400
- To: Jan Henke <jan.henke@deri.org>
- CC: 'Thomas Baker' <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, 'SWD WG' <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Jan Henke wrote: > Dear Ben, > > to me Use Case #9 - Publishing a RDF Vocabulary creates a slightly strange > taste of not really following the spirit of user driven design. Aren't RDF > and RDFa to close to each other as that one using the other could be > regarded as a justifying use case? Hi Jan, Apologies for taking a while to respond to your email. I see your worry. However, I also see great value in this use case. Consider the job of an RDF vocabulary manager. Currently, he must generate an RDF/XML expression of his vocabulary, and provide a separate "human-readable" description. That latter description is often in HTML. Keeping the two in sync can be a bit painful. Wouldn't it be nice if the vocabulary manager could maintain one document, the HTML human-readable description, and annotate it so it can *be* the vocabulary, too? In that sense, this use-case is RDF-driven, which does set it apart from most of the other use cases, which are HTML-driven and happen to use RDF. I see this as the everlasting "dilemma" of RDFa. Is the goal of RDFa to nicely present a chunk of RDF, or is it to sprinkle structure into an HTML document? I think it's a bit of both, which is why I'm okay with this use case. Let me know what you think, -Ben
Received on Monday, 9 April 2007 14:36:29 UTC