On 6/3/11 10:26 PM, Brian Peterson wrote:
Personally, I find Microdata more complex that RDFa, but only after understanding RDFa well enough to know how to make it simple.
Ultimately it really doesn't matter. Don't be distracted by syntaxes for link based data representation.
But Microdata is crummy, crummy at doing what it does (not to mention what it cannot do).
It all depends on who you are, your needs, and your data construction skills etc..
It perverts HTML attributes my making one value-less and making order of attributes significant. Why would Google, Bing, and Yahoo! choose Microdata rather than doing what Facebook did and use a simpler RDFa?
They're all pursuing their own interests. The great thing about this pursuit is that structured data is the common end product. Of course, semantic fidelity varies, but at this stage said fidelity is less important than mass contributions (esp. from behemoths) to the burgeoning Web of Linked Data :-)
Kingsley
Brian -----Original Message----- From: public-lod-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-lod-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Hausenblas Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 5:06 PM To: Linked Data community Subject: Schema.org in RDF ... http://schema.rdfs.org ... is now available - we're sorry for the delay ;) Cheers, Michael -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html
-- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
