Hoi,
There is RDF, there is Semantic MediaWiki. Why should one get a push and the
other not. Semantic MediaWiki is used on production websites. Its usability
is continuously being improved. No cobwebs there.
Having machine readable information is great, but would it not make more
sense to have
Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
Hoi,
There is RDF, there is Semantic MediaWiki. Why should one get a push and the
other not. Semantic MediaWiki is used on production websites. Its usability
is continuously being improved. No cobwebs there.
SMW is of course an option for integrating metadata, but I
Hoi,
When we invest time in implementing time in the RDF extension, the chances
of the eventual support of Semantic MediaWiki are severely diminished. It
may take less time to get the RDF extension in shape, this is your hunch,
but it is a choice only made because it is quick. Not because it
What is a translation but another type of annotation ?
Thanks,
This *Could* be modeled like that in theory. But I don't see an easy way to
implement this with a low cost of transition. Basically, it would require
license info to be not handled via templates at all.
I don't see that happening
2009/1/30 Johannes Beigel johannes.bei...@pediapress.com:
On 29.01.2009, at 13:48, Brianna Laugher wrote:
On Wikimedia Commons a little bit of work has been done to this end:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Commons_API
We've been aware of this page and Magnus' implementation,
