Re: Facebook's Open Graph Protocol

2010/4/28 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>

>
>
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 3:06 AM, Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>wrote:
>
>>
>> On 28 Apr 2010, at 02:57, Toby Inkster wrote:
>>
>> > If they'd reused existing vocabs, they probably wouldn't have been able
>> > to keep their data structure as flat as it is. This flat schema may
>> > prove important for adoption.
>>
>> I think you nailed it on the head here Toby.
>>
>> There is a "reluctance" to reuse existing vocabs for the desire to have a
>> "flat" structure (one namespace).
>
>
> That was certainly a major consideration. But there's another sense of
> 'flat' that Toby perhaps had in mind: they didn't really get into RDF-based
> modelling, and if you look at it as RDF, you see assertions that technically
> are about a page. So the page has a 'director', or a 'cuisine'. This is
> quite simple markup, but is hard to map (even with latest OWL) to other
> vocabs that talk about 'director' of a movie, 'cuisine' of an
> EatingOrientedFoodVendageEstablishment or whatever.
>
> As the one who helped persuade them to use RDFa, I did try to also get a
> more RDFish model adopted, and suggested a schema with mappings (to vcard
> and foaf and portable contacts and dbpedia, ...). This simply wasn't
> possible on last week's schedule, but I'm following up and will keep you
> posted...
>

Awesome work Dan.

I'll be the first to admit that the markup has some shortcomings, but even
if nothing more than this comes out of the SWXG process, this one step
alone, can be considered to be a HUGE success, for the W3C, Linked Data and
all of Web 2.0.  Well done!

Credit must also be given to David Recordon, who got up in the early hours
to speak with us, six months ago, and the rest of the facebook team.


>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>