W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2008


From: Giovanni Tummarello <g.tummarello@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:16:00 +0000
Message-ID: <210271540812291016i604e4bd4m98d3f1fab2bfff67@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Toby A Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "Benjamin Nowack" <bnowack@semsol.com>

Hi Toby,

 i am trying to understand its potential use at high level.

While the idea has an appeal, i'd be inclined to say that while you
might want to interchange CSS, fiddle with them or whatever ,the
semantics of the outputted HTML is OTOH already decided by the logic
of the application: output content and semantics are not two
separated/ interchangable aspects.

If that's the case, then RDFa suffices as that and i'd be scared to
propose yet another RDF serialization mechanism. But i might be
disregarding some use case.. would you have some counterexamples where
it is useful to have such extra layer of indirection between outputted
content and its semantic specifications?

Of course it is as you say much easier than XSLT for RDFication
purposes, so yes it could probably be very useful to hack RDFication
scrapers for sites that do not embed RDFa.

So my suggestion (if the above is correct) would be to to market it as
such, e.g. to clearly state that it is not meant to be used as a
substitute for RDFa.


On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@semsol.com> wrote:
> Oh, I like that idea. Nifty!
> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>> Draft specification
>> http://buzzword.org.uk/2008/rdf-ease/spec
Received on Monday, 29 December 2008 18:16:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:10 UTC