Tom Heath wrote:
As always it's a case of the right tool for the right job. Regarding
your other (admittedly unfounded) claim, there may be many more people
who end up publishing RDF as RDFa, but collectively they may end up
publishing far fewer triples in total than a small number of publishe
(Public notice: anyone sick of document-versus-thing debates and 303
redirects may safely skip this message! ;-)
On 14 Jul 2008, at 17:38, Mark Birbeck wrote:
Let's flip the whole thing on its head, to begin with. Let's say that
our RDF/XML document is referring to a car:
http://cars.org/1
Hi all,
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Cyganiak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14 July 2008 11:15
> To: Mark Birbeck
> Cc: Tom Heath; Kingsley Idehen; public-lod@w3.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RDFa + RDF/XML Considered Harmful? (was RE:
> Ordnance Survey data as Linke
Hi Richard,
> For these reasons I have always viewed RDF/XML as 'scaffolding' that
> holds triples which can be about *anything* you like...anything, that
> is, except itself. :)
Sorry...mis-typed, as Hillary might say.
Obviously RDF can talk about RDF. :)
What I mean (which is hopefully clear
HI Richard,
> Well, RDFa has made life simpler for those publishers whose requirements are
> met well by RDFa. It has made life more complicated for client developers,
> since they have to support yet another RDF syntax.
>
> I think RDFa is an important piece of the SemWeb technology puzzle, but
Richard Cyganiak wrote:
Hi Mark,
On 14 Jul 2008, at 10:22, Mark Birbeck wrote:
I would say that RDFa has made the situation an order of magnitude
_less_ complicated, since authors and developers now have an easier
way to publish metadata;
Well, RDFa has made life simpler for those publisher
Hi folks
(sorry for not chiming in on LOD list before btw; I tried to join
sometime back but it got wedged, but I think that was the old MIT-hosted
list anyways)
Richard Cyganiak wrote:
I don't think this is a problem. For provenance purposes, whatever works
for RDF/XML documents will also
Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 14/07/2008 10:42, "Mark Birbeck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
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; af
Hugh Glaser wrote:
Thanks Tom.
Er, yes.
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.
And if we are ta
On 14.07.2008, at 09:55, Tom Heath wrote:
Question: is it worth creating a duplicate RDF graph by using RDFa in
HTML documents, when there is also RDF/XML available just one
I don't know how other stand on this, but I always thought of RDFa and
RDF/XML for solutions to different problems.
Tom Heath wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
Sent: 12 July 2008 21:43
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: public-lod@w3.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ordnance Survey data as Linked Data (RE: How do
you deprecate URIs? R
On 14/07/2008 10:42, "Mark Birbeck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
>
>> 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
>>
On 14 Jul 2008, at 09:55, Tom Heath wrote:
Question: is it worth creating a duplicate RDF graph by using RDFa in
HTML documents, when there is also RDF/XML available just one
I don't know. On first impression, it doesn't seem very useful to
simply duplicate the triples. Seems like it could
Hi Mark,
On 14 Jul 2008, at 10:22, Mark Birbeck wrote:
I would say that RDFa has made the situation an order of magnitude
_less_ complicated, since authors and developers now have an easier
way to publish metadata;
Well, RDFa has made life simpler for those publishers whose
requirements are
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
Thanks Tom.
Er, yes.
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.
And if we are talking about an RDF br
Hi Tom,
> Question: is it worth creating a duplicate RDF graph by using RDFa in
> HTML documents, when there is also RDF/XML available just one rel=".../> away, and at a distinct URI? Doesn't this RDFa + RDF/XML
> pattern complicate the RDF-consumption picture in general...
It's difficult to an
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
> Sent: 12 July 2008 21:43
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: public-lod@w3.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Ordnance Survey data as Linked Data (RE: How do
> you deprecate URIs? Re: O
18 matches
Mail list logo
