- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:05:02 +0000
- To: "Benjamin Nowack" <bnowack@semsol.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On Nov 22, 2007 9:26 PM, Benjamin Nowack wrote: > and the answer is simply: the API developer can't decide that, it > has to be done by the app developer. Well, consider the case of Linked Data. Imagine browsing the web in the Tabulator... when you see a page that is potentially loadable, you click it, right? Then Tabulator uses its default settings to parse it. It doesn't give any level of configurability on what it can load to the user. Now it certainly could do. But imagine if, every time you clicked a link in Tabulator, it asked you what N formats you want it to be able to handle! Defaults are very handy. > I do agree that it would make sense to > * collect and document possible mappings, and also Yeah, there's some of that going on at the moment on the ESW Wiki. You don't have to document the normative mappings though, i.e. the conformance classes that languages with published specifications have. Part of what I'm talking about here is making sure that future RDF languages have usable conformance classes; a best practice, if you will. > * potential extraction approaches (parsing, scraping, grddl, > 30x following, ConNeg, etc.), and also 30x following and conneg is at the HTTP level... you don't need to document those at all because RFC 2616 and its hundreds of implementations cover it. Anything which implements RDF over HTTP should implement those things. GRDDL, of course, is specified too, but as I've said the default conformance class isn't very useful because every program conforms to it--it's more like advice than anything. The GRDDL Test Cases do, however, as Chimezie Ogbuji noted to me yesterday, form one such line in the sand which is more usable. There could be others, and we should document those. It would be nice to express the capability of clients in RDF too. > * approach-specific triggers to make it easier for SWUAs once > they decided which approaches to try. I'm not sure what you mean by this; would you care to expand on it please? > G = Graph('http://example.org/', 'rdfa hcard-vcard2001 openid-foaf hatom-rss') What if you don't know what formats example.org is using? Note that you can shortcut using the transform URI anyway, so you don't even need to specify the last three of those arguments as long as the transforms are in the first document--you wouldn't gain very much speed. I think parsing to the end of <head> is probably reasonable to do various format detections. > But it's quite some work, either way. Yes indeed... -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Friday, 23 November 2007 10:30:24 UTC