Hi Hugh, > I was puzzled by the suggestion that I might duplicate the RDF in the page > that did > a simple html rendering of the underlying RDF I was trying to publish. > I would have thought that this is actually a Bad Thing, rather than a Good > Thing.
Obviously it depends on what you want to happen to your data. If you're publishing from one of your servers to another, or using some closed system, then obviously there is no reason to do more work than necessary. But if you are trying to publish metadata that will be consumed by other services, then RDFa is an option that is attracting wider interest. I'm working on a project to allow UK public sector jobs to be published for wider consumption, and I can tell you, I'm not looking at RDF/XML! I'm looking primarily at RDFa in web-pages, a little Microformats for compatibility with Google's social network processing and client-side tools like Operator, and then Atom feeds with embedded RDFa for consumption by services like SearchMonkey. > And if we are talking about an RDF browser (as our pages are, albeit with a > clean URI > that doesn't have the browser URI in it), getting it to include the RDF as > RDFa or whatever > is even stranger; after all > http://demo.openlinksw.com/rdfbrowser2/?uri%5B%5D=http%3A%2F%2Fos.rkbexplorer.com%2Fdescription%2Fosr7000000000017765 > doesn't include the substantive RDF as RDFa, (or have a link rel to > http://os.rkbexplorer.com/data/osr7000000000017765 for that matter) which > would be the > equivalent. I can't comment on that example, but ultimately there is no need for a URL for an HTML+RDFa page to be any different to a normal one. (Although I might have missed your point, here....) Regards, Mark -- Mark Birbeck, webBackplane [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street, London, EC2A 4RR)
