On 15 Jul 2008, at 13:40, Taylor Cowan wrote:
An important difference between embedded RDF/XML and RDFa is that
RDFa and the xhtml can use the same "literals".
? That seems true for RDF/XML as well. Hence parseType=Literal. You
can also hide literals, hence property attributes.
In other words, the text viewed by the human, and the text stored
as the literal object of a triple is the same.
An option in RDF/XML.
xhtml has the <meta/> tags which are pretty much ignored because
they often have nothing to do with the real content of the page.
If I have a web page of for sale listings, the RDFa isn't meta-data
about the listings, it is the data. It's just data-data, the data
we really want, not extra data we thought to hide from human eyes.
And that has implications for how useful, trustable, and spamable
the content may be.
And in the cases where the RDFa adds semantics on top of what the
human sees, it's position carefully in place with the xhtml it
modifies, not at the top or bottom of the document, relagated to
2nd class "meta-data" status.
[snip]
Sorry, I don't understand your point. I've no doubt that embedded RDF/
XML is nastier for several reasons, but this doesn't seem to be one
of them.
Cheers,
Bijan.
