On Sep 22, 2009, at 17:37, Mark Birbeck wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Henri Sivonen <hsivo...@iki.fi>
wrote:
The BBC is publishing RDFa in the form of program reviews.
You missed one.
Nothing to say on this?
I quoted it above the UK government bit to make the same comment about
both.
UK government websites are publishing job vacancies and
consultations with
RDFa.
Who consumes this data? (My point being: If a cow falls in the
forest but no
one is there to observe it, does it make a path?)
Unless it flew there...yes, it does make a path.
But seriously...
...oh, why bother.
If the UK government publishing a ton of metadata in the form of RDFa
still only puts us at roughly the same level of adoption as Microdata
I think we've reached the end of rational debate.
Until it's also shown that the data is being consumed, it hasn't been
shown that the publication of data resulted in communication. I'm not
saying that no one is consuming it. I'm asking if anyone is. I think
it's an important point in assessing the success of a Web technology
if it actually enables communication. Producers without consumers
aren't interesting in their own right.
Drupal 7 includes RDFa support.
What does that mean? Does Drupal output RDFa? If so, who consumes
it? Does
it ingest RDFa? If so, from where?
Who cares?
I care, obviously, since I asked.
Those are very relevant questions. We've seen the RDFa community name
drop first Yahoo! and then Google as evidence of success of the design
of RDFa. However, in both cases when others inspected whether the
implementations actually implemented CURIE processing, the answer was
that they didn't. Yahoo! first reportedly treated prefixes as
meaningful (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Mar/0100.html
). Google reportedly looks at the after-colon part, and a Google
engineer indicated that the implementation "will [...] deviate from
the standard" (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Sep/0126.html
).
I see both Yahoo!'s case and Google's case as evidence suggesting
CURIEs are a design that isn't working.
Now, when Drupal is name dropped as evidence of success, why should
anyone trust that it actually implements RDFa either in producer or
consumer capacity in a way that in any meaningful sense validates the
RDFa design until some further details about the matter are presented?
Do you know how big the Drupal community is?
I don't. How big is it?
it's becoming farcical.
How would you characterize the ongoing denial that the syntax xmlns:p="http://example.com/
" is problematic?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0843.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0790.html
How can the problem be meaningfully resolved when you aren't even
admitting there's a problem to discuss?
If you or Ian had proposed that RDFa also support reverse DNS
identifiers, you might have found less support...but hey, let's talk
about it.
But that didn't happen.
I did suggest using full URIs instead of CURIEs. I even prototyped
validator support for it before we had Microdata.
I removed the validator prototype when it became obvious that the RDFa
community was utterly disinterested in solving the xmlns problem by
using full URIs and when a better alternative (Microdata) had been
specced.
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivo...@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
