Hi all, We at the Callimachus Project [1] think RDFa is just wonderful. We use it as the basis for our template language and produce heaps of HTML containing it. Of course, we also allow "pure" RDF to content negotiated for easier machine readability.
My personal opinion is that RDFa is a necessary alternative for the many people out there who create only unstructured content, and thus can only provide structured metadata by embedding it. That situation would seem to be more common than not, off the LOD cloud anyway. Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood [1] http://callimachusproject.org On Jan 18, 2013, at 05:23, Dan Brickley <[email protected]> wrote: > With RDFa maturing (RDFa 1.1, particularly Lite), I wanted to ask here > about attitudes to RDFa. > > I have acquired the impression somehow that in the Linked Data scene, > people lean more towards the classic 'a doc for the humans, another > for the machines' partitioning model. Perhaps this is just a > consequence of history; digging around some old rdfweb/foaf > discussions[1] I realise just how far we've come. RDFa wasn't an > option for a long time; but it is now. > > So - questions. How much of the linked data cloud is expressed in some > variant HTML+RDFa alongside RDF/XML, Turtle etc.? When/if you do so, > are you holding some data back and keeping it only in the > machine-oriented dumps, or including it in the RDFa? Are you finding > it hard to generate RDFa from triple datasets because it's 'supposed' > to be intermingled with human text? What identifiers (if any) are you > assigning to real-world entities? Dataset maintainers ... as you look > to the future is RDFa in your planning? Did/does Microdata confuse the > picture? > > I'm curious where we are with this... > > Dan > > > > > > > [1] > http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-dev/2000-September/004222.html > http://web.archive.org/web/20011123075822/http://rdfwebring.org/2000/09/rdfweblog/example.html >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
