W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2010

Re: rdfa vs. links

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:31:32 +0100
To: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
CC: Semantic Web community <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C8ECA4D4.163C9%michael.hausenblas@deri.org>

William ,

Your question motivated me to eventually carry out an experiment I thought
of a while ago. Now I got my act together and eventually published some
observations on the topic of HTML+RDFa load time dependencies on the number
of embedded triples [1]. I hope you find this useful ;)


[1] http://webofdata.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/rdfa-profiling/

Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730

> From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
> Reply-To: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:33:14 +0200
> To: Semantic Web community <semantic-web@w3.org>
> Subject: rdfa vs. links
> Resent-From: Semantic Web community <semantic-web@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:34:05 +0000
> The argument was recently put to me that "rdfa was designed for
> layering rdf into html". While I'm not against the idea of doing
> this (and am happy to get data this way from people who find
> it more convenient to make them available with RDFa) I generally
> prefer to make RDF/XML and N3 available and link to them using
> meta http-equiv.
> So the question is about best practices. I can also layer CSS
> and JavaScript in HTML using <script> and <style> tags and in
> some circumstances it might actually be convenient to do so
> but generally I think is better to link to them as separate
> documents. Is this not so also with RDF?
> Cheers,
> -w
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 14:32:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:20 UTC