On 3/1/09 16:54, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
Also sprach Dan Brickley:

  >  My main problem with the natural language processing option is that it
  >  feels too close to waiting for Artificial Intelligence. I'd rather add 6
  >  attributes to HTML and get on with life.


Another thought re NLP. RDFa (and similar, ...) are formats that can be used for writing down the conclusions of NLP analysis. For example here see the BBC's recent Muddy Boots experiment, using DBPedia (Wikipedia in RDF) data to drive autoclassification / named entity recognition. So here we can agree with Ian and others that text analysis has much to offer, and still use RDFa (or other semantic markup - i'll sidestep that debate for now) as a notation for marking up the words with a machine-friendly indicator of their NLP-guessed meaning.


Personally, I think the 'class' attribute may still be a more
compelling option in a less-is-more way. It already exists and can
easily be used for styling purposes. Styling is bait for authors to
disclose semantics.

I'm sure there's mileage to be had there. I'm somehow incapable of writing XSLT so GRDDL hasn't really charmed me, but 'class' certainly corresponds to a lot of meaningful markup. Naturally enough it is stronger at tagging bits of information with a category than at defining relationships amongst the things defined when they're scattered around the page. But that's no reason to dismiss it entirely.

Did you see the RDF-EASE draft, http://buzzword.org.uk/2008/rdf-ease/spec? From which comes: "Ten second sales pitch: CSS is an external file that specifies how your document should look; RDF-EASE is an external file that specifies what your document means."

RDF-EASE uses CSS-based syntax. More discussion here, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Dec/0148.html including question of whether it ought to be expressed using css3-namespace, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Dec/0175.html




Reply via email to