On 14 Jul 2008, at 09:55, Tom Heath wrote:
Question: is it worth creating a duplicate RDF graph by using RDFa in
HTML documents, when there is also RDF/XML available just one <link
rel=".../> away, and at a distinct URI?
I don't know. On first impression, it doesn't seem very useful to
simply duplicate the triples. Seems like it could be a maintenance/
publishing headache.
Doesn't this RDFa + RDF/XML
pattern complicate the RDF-consumption picture in general if we assume
agents will want to do something with data aggregated from a number of
sources/locations, i.e. doesn't it increase the cost of removing
duplicate statements by creating more in the first place?
Yes, good point.
There might be some simple ways around this, e.g. if we follow a
rel="alternate" link from an HTML page to an RDF document, we might
use the HTML page's URI as the provenance (named graph) of the triples
parsed from the RDF document, since it's just an alternate variant of
the same page.
But yes, it complicates the picture.
Does it not
also complicate the picture of making provenance statements using
named
graphs, if the subject of the triple could be both an HTML document
and
an RDF graph?
I don't think this is a problem. For provenance purposes, whatever
works for RDF/XML documents will also work for HTML+RDFa documents.
Just think of RDFa as a very verbose RDF syntax that contains a lot of
“comments” (the non-RDF, pure-HTML parts of the document). In the end,
an RDF agent just sees triples, no matter if they are parsed out of an
HTML+RDFa document or an RDF/XML document.
Richard
Dunno the answers to these questions, but interested to hear what
people
think.
Tom.
--
Tom Heath
Researcher
Platform Team
Talis Information Ltd
T: 0870 400 5000
W: http://www.talis.com/platform
