Aldo Bucchi wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Yves Raimond <yves.raim...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello!
Wading into this conversation a little late, but feel compelled to comment...
I'll be honest, I find these kind of RDFa vs RDF/XML vs "A.N. Other
Publishing Setup" discussions tedious and counter-productive.
Different technical approaches will be appropriate in different
scenarios (*), so whatever our personal preferences let's not make
blanket statements in favour of one approach over another without
providing qualifying information for people who may be newer to the
field and not have in depth appreciation of the subtleties. One of the
great strengths of the Linked Data community has been its pragmatism,
and while RDFa may be the pragmatic choice in some situations it won't
be in others.
I completely agree with Tom here, and find this RDFa vs RDF/XML debate
quite tedious. For example, in our programmes pages (e.g.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00k6mpd) we don't expose all the
available versions (signed, shortened, original, etc.) because it is
not directly relevant for human consumption - we just merge different
things version-related that are relevant (e.g. on-demand audio/video,
etc.) to provide a good user experience. So if we were to use only
RDFa, we would loose that valuable bit of information.
Some data needs to be prodded and merged to not overload the user with
information and just present him with bits relevant to human
consumption. However, in the raw RDF views, we can provide all these
details, that may be relevant for applications, e.g. getting all
broadcasts of a signed version of a particular programme.
So different publishing methodologies are appropriate for different needs :-)
Cheers,
y
Agree here. In fact, let me say that my own "RDFavoritisms" have
morphed over time as I have run into situations where one approach is
better than the other, for any number of reasons. I am doing things
now that I once thought to be heresy.
I guess the trick is not to argue about what's better/best but to make
every possible choice CONSISTENT with the conceptual framework being
built, so that every drop of participation adds up and crystallizes.
Truth is none of us can foresee which one approach will have the most
data 3 years from now. This thing shifts with the winds ( there are
more surprises to come, for sure ).
Now, what would be useful is a decision tree or a list of recipes. Let
newcomers choose but don't overwhelm them with total freedom either.
That's the wonder of Linked Data. The simple recipes... that... work! ;)
80/20
Regards,
A
Aldo et. al,
Yes, I agree completely!
Speaking for myself, I simply want to add the use of RDFa to the Linked
Data conversation. Mutually Exclusive approaches to data identity,
access, and representation are inherently contradictory to the essence
of Linked Data, so RDFa vs RDF/XML vs N3 etc.. doesn't even compute in
my world view.
Giovanni: RDFa simply joins the list of mechanisms for publishing linked
data, no more no less. Content Negotiation is intrinsic to HTTP which
is what drives the Web. As stated in my initial response, we just need
to add RDFa's use to the Linked Data publishing conversation :-)
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
