- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:29:01 +0100
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
> I know that Michael Hausenblas and others have been working on doing > a mapping from schema.org to RDF; perhaps that might work as the > basis for a Community Group that could look at defining a mapping. The Schema.org sponsors have taken up this work and directly provide an OWL version now [1]. We collect and maintain mappings from widely deployed RDF vocabularies to Schema.org via Schema.RDFS.org [2] ... which reminds me that I have an action to properly update our site with the recent changes ;) Cheers, Michael [1] https://groups.google.com/d/topic/schemaorg-discussion/0JVQO6-ajBk/discussion [2] https://github.com/mhausenblas/schema-org-rdf/tree/master/mappings -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html On 27 Jul 2011, at 17:12, Jeni Tennison wrote: > On 27 Jul 2011, at 09:17, Henry S. Thompson wrote: >> Jeni Tennison writes: >>> Ian is proposing dropping the RDF mapping from the microdata spec >>> (see first comment at): >>> >>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/105458233028934590147/posts/3MdCwFNKPfX >>> >>> Since the presence of that part of the microdata spec is a primary >>> cause of conflict between it and RDFa, and the RDF that is produced >>> by it doesn't match people's expectations (about which Tim filed a >>> bug), I assume that we would support such a change? >> >> I don't think _dropping_ it is what we want -- we want it _fixed_, >> don't we? > > > On 27 Jul 2011, at 14:06, Jonathan Rees wrote: >> I think there are many ways to look at this, but one theory I've >> entertained is that microdata bears the same relation to RDF that, >> say, XML or CSV does - it's just another information source that has >> to be reverse engineered and then re-expressed if it wants to be used >> by in an RDF context. Therefore, dictating a single standard way to >> do >> the re-expression may be as premature and/or inappropriate as it >> would >> be for CSV or XML. If some RDF is to capture the meaning of some >> microdata, then someone has to come up with a theory that accounts >> for >> what the particular microdata means, and such a theory might be >> subtle, nontrivial, or context-dependent - at the very least it >> requires some thought. And even if a standard correspondence were >> desired by the (or an) RDF-using community, that method would >> probably >> better be specified by those affected, rather than by a working group >> that is obviously not sympathetic to RDF. > [snip] >> So my impulse is to agree with Ian and with you. But I could also >> agree with Henry: If you don't prescribe a re-expression of microdata >> as RDF now, then maybe any hope of doing so later will be doomed. > > I suppose that it might be a problem that without a generic mapping > defined, different processors end up with different methods of > mapping microdata to RDF. But I also agree with Jonathan that the > definition of the mapping would be best done by people who care > about producing RDF that works well in other RDF serialisations and > with the rest of the RDF toolchain. > > I know that Michael Hausenblas and others have been working on doing > a mapping from schema.org to RDF; perhaps that might work as the > basis for a Community Group that could look at defining a mapping. > >> (I'm assuming throughout that microdata and RDFa remain separate >> things, and this may change.) >> >> I didn't think that the microdata to RDF translation is the 'primary >> cause of conflict' in the microdata/RDFa debate; it's just one piece >> of it. Even without any translation at all, we would still have the >> questions of whether there is duplicate functionality, whether that >> matters, and whether anything ought to be done about it. > > > Sure. I meant *direct* conflict, as in the RDF being generated by a > microdata processor based on the mapping in the microdata spec being > inconsistent from the RDF generated by a RDFa processor working over > the same page. There's still the "should there really be two > Recommendations addressing the same use cases in different ways?" > question. > > Jeni > -- > Jeni Tennison > http://www.jenitennison.com > >
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 16:29:29 UTC