- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:35:29 +0100
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, public-lod@w3.org
- Cc: SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 15 Jul 2008, at 12:16, Mark Birbeck wrote: [snip] > Sure. But there is nothing to say that you can't publish large > datasets using XHTML+RDFa, i.e., producing XHTML+RDFa documents that > are primarily intended for consumption by another server, rather than > a web browser. > > Publishers might then choose to publish just one document type, > especially when it can be consumed by search engines like > SearchMonkey. > > Once people realise this, it will be interesting to see how much the > RDF/XML format is used, going forwards. [snip] One funny aspect of RDF/XML, as I understand the history, is that some of the quirkier aspects of its design stemmed from the goal of being embedable in HTML (hence all the alternative forms) in a legacy browser compatible way. In this sense, RDFa aims to fulfill one of the RDF/XML goals that helped make it (somewhat) unsuitable to backend work (compare with NTriples). If at first you don't succeed, try again 10 years later ;) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 11:43:28 UTC