W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > May 2009

Re: SKOS Implementation : LCSH

From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 12:06:45 -0400
Message-ID: <f032cc060905050906gf422649w3fd099566d5e70b9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Cc: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Michael Hausenblas
<michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:
> Please, let us not threaten people using RDFa if there is no reason for it.

Thanks for the clarification and the pointer Michael. I'm sorry if
what I wrote sounded threatening. I certainly didn't intend it to
sound that way, since I'm actually a *big* fan of rdfa. This might be
too-much-information, but I'd like try to provide some context, so
that people don't interpret me as saying RDFa should be avoided.

As a software developer I try to avoid introducing redundancy into
code, because it is a common source of bugs and general maintenance
problems [1]. At the moment the web application at id.loc.gov is
serving up the rdfa using an html templating system that's part of the
django web framework. The other rdf serializations (xml, ntriples,
json) are generated from an identical graph data structure using
rdflib. So it's currently quite easy for differences to creep in
between the assertions found in the rdfa compared to the other rdf

I argued against using rdfa initially at id.loc.gov because I wanted
to avoid this perceived synchronization problem. But perhaps this is a
red-herring as well, particularly as rdfa tools evolve.  It's also a
situation that completely goes away if you only express your rdf as

Sorry for adding to the noise,

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 16:07:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:56 UTC