Re: Deprecate http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# in favour of /ns/rdf# ??

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 03:22:59 +1000, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>  
wrote:

> Has there been any more thought about embedding JSON-LD in a script tag  
> inside HTML as an alternative to RDFa? RDFa is a pain.

That depends on your perspective. JSON-LD is a pain in my world. For any  
syntax, there are people who are going to hate it, as we have seen  
demonstrated by the number of syntaces proposed for RDF.

It would seem generally sensible to provide at least those which are  
recognised officially (itself a growing number, but luckily we can  
auto-convert everything ;) Except if you use KOI8-R encodings).

cheers

> Jeff
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Nov 29, 2013, at 6:20 AM, "Andy Seaborne"  
>> <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 29/11/13 09:04, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>> Whatever we do, let's do it in RDFa this time. Humans are at least as
>>> important consumers of schemas as computers.
>>>
>>> FWIW I think some of the adoption we saw back with the FOAF work
>>> (apart from being there early) came from having namespace URIs
>>> de-reference to (more or less) human readable documentation. Far too
>>> many schema URIs point at a ridiculously unreadable XML file that just
>>> gets saved to disk and can't be opened with any useful tooling.
>>
>> Use content negotiation.  Make at least HTML, RDFa, Turtle, JSON-LD  
>> available.
>>
>>    Andy
>>
>
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Sunday, 1 December 2013 07:18:02 UTC