W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > site-comments@w3.org > October 2009

Re: New W3C Web Site Launched

From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:55:38 -0700
Message-ID: <19158.15050.452744.358562@retriever.mtv.corp.google.com>
To: kendall@clarkparsia.com
Cc: raman@google.com, ij@w3.org, michael.hausenblas@deri.org, site-comments@w3.org, chairs@w3.org, w3c-ac-forum@w3.org

It's somewhat unfortuante that you chose to characterize my views
as being specific to Google's interests --- though I suspect it's
only fair that you might have thought so given that I'm our AC

For the record, my comments regarding embedded metadata within
Web pages to make them more machine-readable was a personal
viewpoint   in this cae --- it's something I would say
independent of my Google affiiation. 

Kendall Clark writes:
 > In my view this position is overly limited. There are plenty of
 > industrial contexts where publishing RDF over HTTP is sufficient;
 > others where over SPARQL is the right thing; and yet others where
 > embedding in HTML via RDFa is the way to go.
 > It's simply not possible to say, simpliciter, that one or the other is
 > universally preferred. Frankly, that reflects either a very limited
 > understanding of the range of use cases or a failure to acknowledge
 > that *all* Web technologies -- semantic and otherwise -- have a life
 > and utility on networks other than the one public Web. I can
 > appreciate Google having some kind of preference for "the one public
 > Web", but other member orgs work in other environments where RDFa
 > isn't the best choice.
 > Cheers,
 > Kendall Clark
 > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:14 PM, T.V Raman <raman@google.com> wrote:
 > >
 > > No, publishing the RDF directly is already an acknowledged
 > > failure in my opinion as far as reaching a wider Web audience is
 > > concerned. The RDFA work was an attempt at remedying this -- its
 > > detractors will tell you readily that it's not suitable
 > > either. But then we digress.
 > >
 > > I think the overall concensus is that given the scrapy
 > > "architecture" of the Web today, having $( > > html is more likely to get scraped and used.
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 20:56:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 18 April 2022 20:33:47 UTC