- From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:26:25 +0200
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: public-sweo-ig@w3.org
sounds all great to me. <> dc:creator [ sweo:thumbsUpFor <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ> ] . benjamin ;) On 04.04.2007 13:54:31, Ivan Herman wrote: > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > > > >Benjamin Nowack wrote: >> >> General impression: Wow! I found some of the individual >> > > >And wow! for the review:-) Thanks a lot Benjamin. I have only a few >comments below, all the other comments have been simply taken over... > >Thanks again > >Ivan > > > >[snip] >>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#Folskonomi >> s/folksonomies (microformats, tagging, …)/folksonomies, microformats, >tagging, >> …/ (as MFs are independent of folksonomies) >> it is necessary *to* add additional >> s/keywordsearch/keyword search/ or keyword-search? >> The third paragraph starts with "There are, of course, other differences. >> Microformats ...". It isn't clear which differences are meant, those >> between MFs and ontologies, or between MFs and folksonomies? >>> "developed very quickly by communities" >> It's actually faster to create an RDF vocab than to go through the MF >> process. Folksonomies can be developed very quickly, but they don't >> tend to be small. > >Well, if I compare a hCard to, say, a music ontology, they are smaller. >And the comparison of the speed is not on the process; because the >microformat vocabularies are relatively simple, it is usually relatively >straightforward to define them technically, unlike, say, and OWL ontology. > >> >> And there is eRDF which also allows to add semantic markup to HTML. >> > >This is how the last paragraph looks like now: > >[[[ >Note that the GRDDL Working Group has developed a “bridge” to the >microformats approach; it defines a general procedure whereby >microformats stored in an XHTML file can be transformed into RDF >on–the–fly. Also, the Semantic Web Deployment group’s work on RDFa >develops an XHTML1.1 module that gives the possibility to use virtually >any RDF vocabularies as annotations of the XHTML content; a bit like >microformats with somewhat more rigor and a better way of integrating >different vocabularies within the same document. Finally, eRDF >(developed by Talis) offers a formalism somewhere between the two: one >can add general RDF data to an (X)HTML page without the need for a new >module, although with restrictions on the type of RDF vocabularies that >can be used this way. >]]] > >[snip] >> I don't know where to squeeze it in exactly, but I think one huge >> add-on of RDF is the ability to easily re-use combined (= enriched) >> data as input for further applications ("mashup chaining"). This >> bcomes possible as RDF is a data technology while Web 2.0 focuses >> on APIs. >> > >I have added, in the Web 2.0 section, the following paragraph: > >[[[ >In many cases, using RDF-based techniques makes the mashing up process >easier, mainly when data collected by one application is reused by >another one somewhere down the line. The general nature of RDF makes >this “mashup chaining” straightforward, which is not always the case for >simpler Web 2.0 applications. >]]] > > >>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#Does >> "stored in, say, in RDF/XML" => "stored in, say, RDF/XML" >> >>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#pout >> s/violating the the validity/violating the validity/ >> s/microformat approach/microformats approach/ >> And eRDF allows to add a usable subset of RDF to XHTML w/o >> breaking validity. >> > >This is how it looks like now: > >[[[ >Unfortunately, it is currently not possible to incorporate full RDF into >XHTML without violating the validity of the resulting XHTML, except for >the usage of the meta and the link elements in the header. The best >solution is to store the RDF separately and use the URI-s to refer to >the XHTML page and the link element in the XHTML page to refer to the >RDF content. However, work is going on for a better integration of RDF >into documents. The GRDDL Working Group has recently developed a >“bridge” to the microformats approach, and the Semantic Web Deployment >group’s work on RDFa develops an additional XHTML1.1 module that gives >the possibility to use virtually any RDF vocabularies as annotations of >the XHTML content. Finally, eRDF (developed by Talis) offers a formalism >somewhere between the two: one can add general RDF data to an (X)HTML >page without problems with validity, although with restrictions on the >type of RDF vocabularies that can be used this way. >]]] > >> >> >> Ben >> >> -- >> Benjamin Nowack >> http://bnode.org/ >> >> > >- -- > >Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html >FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin) >Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > >iD8DBQFGE5H3dR3hQzQ/Gj0RAnwNAJ9feY9FFNCmsB6lrVC7TnGFR+k4JQCbBXO+ >QFOl2VKytHu3s4friPE2QsQ= >=fIGB >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 13:28:13 UTC