* Aryeh Gregor [Thu, 21 Jan 2010
18:55:38 -0500]:
> Okay, I'll grant that for an RDF-style use-case, parser functions are
> a better bet than the alternatives. However, I'm not sure that's the
> case for inline markup, in the limited cases where we want that (e.g.,
> image licenses). The proble
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Lane, Ryan
wrote:
> Why shouldn't we use a technology neutral input format? What happens if
> microdata is replaced by something better/easier/simpler? I also don't
> necessarily think we should lock users into a certain technology. If we
> choose a nuetral input
o
> the best that we can to answer them:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/
>
> Below is the off-list e-mail that I sent to Aryeh, Philip, Henri and David.
>
>
>
> Message-ID: <4b55010b.6090...@digitalb
0
From: Manu Sporny
User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Henri Sivonen ,
Aryeh Gregor ,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Philip_J=E4genstedt?=
CC: David Gerard
Subject: [OFFLIST] Re: [Wikitech-l] RDFa and Microdata in MediaWiki
References: <95e5d943-bd84-4028-8fda-8cb
On 01/20/2010 04:47 PM, Happy-melon wrote:
>
> "Aryeh Gregor" wrote in message
> news:7c2a12e21001200638y759365c8oeecd8f06f761a...@mail.gmail.com...
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Happy-melon wrote:
>>
>> I bet very few people would bother adding metadata without a concrete
>> use. And th
"Aryeh Gregor" wrote in message
news:7c2a12e21001200638y759365c8oeecd8f06f761a...@mail.gmail.com...
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Happy-melon wrote:
>
> I bet very few people would bother adding metadata without a concrete
> use. And they'd probably get into fights with other people annoy
> I bet very few people would bother adding metadata without a concrete use.
This whole discussion about meta-data sounds eerily familiar...
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGML
"As a document markup language, SGML was originally designed to enable
the sharing of machine-readable large-projec
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Aryeh Gregor
wrote:
> No kidding the latter is shorter. A more realistic comparison might
> be
>
> itemprop="title">EmeryMolyneux-terrestrialglobe-1592-20061127.jpg
> by Bob Smith is licensed under a itemprop="license"
> href="http://creativecommons.org/licens
> We could use this, but I don't see a big advantage over raw microdata
> if a) we'll be outputting as microdata at first anyway, and b) it's
> only expected to be used for a very few things like licenses,
> presumably hidden away behind templates. If it is done, though, it
> should be with curly
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Happy-melon wrote:
> I was saying that license templates are significantly easier to machine-read
> than infoboxes, because their data is simpler. The ultimate goal is, as you
> say, to allow machine reading without bespoke parsing, but that's a long way
> down th
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:40:16 +0300, Dmitriy Sintsov wrote:
> * Aryeh Gregor [Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:36:23
> -0500]:
>> What would be sample SMW markup for the image example from my first post
>> here?
> Something like this:
> [[Property_name::Property_value]]
> I think the "third" (actually the firs
Dmitriy Sintsov schrieb:
> * Dmitriy Sintsov [Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:40:16
> +0300]:
> Probably even shorter:
>
> [[Work::File:meryMolyneux-terrestrialglobe-1592-20061127.jpg]]
> [[Title::Emery Molyneux Terrestrial Globe]]
> [[Author::Bob Smith]]
> [[License::CC-BY-SA-3.0]]
>
> (as Happy-melon sug
Dmitriy Sintsov schrieb:
> * Aryeh Gregor [Mon, 18 Jan 2010
> 17:36:23 -0500]:
>> What would be sample SMW markup for the image example from my first
>> post here?
> Something like this:
> [[Property_name::Property_value]]
> I think the "third" (actually the first) value in triple will be the
>
* Dmitriy Sintsov [Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:40:16
+0300]:
Probably even shorter:
[[Work::File:meryMolyneux-terrestrialglobe-1592-20061127.jpg]]
[[Title::Emery Molyneux Terrestrial Globe]]
[[Author::Bob Smith]]
[[License::CC-BY-SA-3.0]]
(as Happy-melon suggested).
Such way the output of RDFa/microda
* Aryeh Gregor [Mon, 18 Jan 2010
17:36:23 -0500]:
> What would be sample SMW markup for the image example from my first
> post here?
Something like this:
[[Property_name::Property_value]]
I think the "third" (actually the first) value in triple will be the
page where the property is defined. Als
"Aryeh Gregor" wrote in message
news:7c2a12e21001181612t84d5c90kc16ccc8724ca5...@mail.gmail.com...
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Happy-melon wrote:
>> Eh? I get the feeling that we're reading from totally different song
>> sheets
>> here. You seem to be saying here is that you expect th
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 23:34, Manu Sporny wrote:
> You cannot, however, express RDF fully in Microdata - it is impossible
> in cases where it matters to Wikipedia (like data-typing).
I'm not a Wikipedia developer or particularly active editor, but it
sounds quite doubtful that XML Schema Dataty
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Happy-melon wrote:
> Eh? I get the feeling that we're reading from totally different song sheets
> here. You seem to be saying here is that you expect the use case to be
> 'license templates on steroids': on the image description page, we have
> license templates
"Aryeh Gregor" wrote in message
news:7c2a12e21001180857x24bac57fp824c019956143...@mail.gmail.com...
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
> 1) Output a very few pieces of metadata that would be useful to HTML
> consumers, like license metadata. For these, we should use micr
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Not necessarily. Javascript can use the RDFa on the page to generate
> more intuitive interfaces for the page.
Sure, but if we're providing the JavaScript, we could do it without
RDFa just as well. Or can you provide a specific case where you
2010/1/18 Manu Sporny :
> Rather than argue the same FUD for Microdata, which anybody could, I
> This is FUD. You are asserting your opinion without making any sort of
Please don't do this sort of thing. You were asked once already not do.
- d.
___
Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> The above could be marked up in RDFa, with pre-defined vocabs, like so:
>
> It should be noted that the concept of "pre-defined vocabs" is neither
> in the HTML+RDFa draft nor in the RDFa in XHTML spec from the XHTML2 WG.
When I said "pre-defined vocabs", I was refering to
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Dmitriy Sintsov wrote:
> There were the comparsions how many bytes the semantic data definition
> would take in RDFa or microdata, but it certainly takes even much less
> bytes to define the properties in SMW. If the SMW itself is not
> suitable, why not to borrow
Before we get into this thread too deeply, for those that are not
familiar with semantic data, RDF, RDFa or why any of this stuff applies
to Wikipedia, there are two very short videos that explain the concepts
at a high-level (apologies, as they're a bit dated):
Intro to the Semantic Web (6 minute
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 17:57, Aryeh Gregor
wrote:
> AFAIK, Microdata is slightly less expressive than RDFa (it can't
> express cycles or something like that -- maybe someone else could
> clarify?)
It was Toby Inkster who pointed this out on public-html recently. [1]
Here's my take on it: Since
Neil Harris schrieb:
> I definitely wouldn't recommend a flat triples store as the only storage
> representation.
>
> Based on past experience with just such a system, while it's formally
> semantically equivalent to higher-level descriptions, it's definitely
> much harder to munge, because you
> There were the comparsions how many bytes the semantic data definition
> would take in RDFa or microdata, but it certainly takes even much less
> bytes to define the properties in SMW. If the SMW itself is not
> suitable, why not to borrow the compact [[::]] property definition
> syntax, at least
* Aryeh Gregor [Mon, 18 Jan 2010
11:57:53 -0500]:
> 1) Output a very few pieces of metadata that would be useful to HTML
> consumers, like license metadata. For these, we should use microdata
> or RDFa, maybe just with one or two vocabularies whitelisted, and it
> would be simplest to just let p
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> It's true that both HTML+RDFa and Microdata have been published in Working
> Drafts at the W3C. However, Microdata has never been through a Working Group
> Decision to publish as a First Public Working Draft while HTML+RDFa has.
> Microdat
On 18/01/10 14:46, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
>> The point is,
>> anyway, that enabling something like SMW (probably with fewer
>> features) is orthogonal to RDFa/microdata/RDF support -- the extension
>> could incidentally output RDF or whatnot, but it doesn't matter for
>> internal use.
>>
> P
> The point is,
> anyway, that enabling something like SMW (probably with fewer
> features) is orthogonal to RDFa/microdata/RDF support -- the extension
> could incidentally output RDF or whatnot, but it doesn't matter for
> internal use.
Perhaps the right approach for us would be to have "some"
Since both RDFa and Microdata support the same underlying data model,
and it's likely to take some time to resolve which will be the eventual
winner, perhaps we should decouple the generation of the final HTML
output from the markup of semantic text in articles.
Since it makes no sense to imple
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> RDFa is a way to embed data in HTML more robustly than with attributes
> like class and title, which are reserved for author use or have
> existing functionality. It allows you to specify an external
> vocabulary that adds some semantics to your page that HTML is not
> capable
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> [...]
>> Also, it's a bit sad that so many toolserver tools are standalone and
>> are not a part of MediaWiki distribution. That tool should be a part of
>> Special:Search.
> Most toolserver tool authors just don't bother applying for commit
> access for whatever reason. M
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Denny Vrandecic
wrote:
> I was not talking about WIkipedia -- even though our scalability tests
> suggest that it could work there, but it is hard to say in advance without
> testing on the actual WMF server farm. I am merely talking about Wikisource,
> and won
* Aryeh Gregor [Sat, 16 Jan 2010
23:06:06 -0500]:
> You can do this with database queries fine -- there are already
> several different toolserver tools that will do category intersections
> for you, and a couple extensions. In fact, bog-standard search will
> do it for you, although AFAIK only
On Jan 17, 2010, at 16:11, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Denny Vrandecic
> wrote:
>> the use you may need seems to be a lot like what Semantic MediaWiki is
>> offering.
>> I don't know if Wikisource would consider it, but adding user-curated
>> metadata
>> using a user-
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Denny Vrandecic
wrote:
> the use you may need seems to be a lot like what Semantic MediaWiki is
> offering.
> I don't know if Wikisource would consider it, but adding user-curated metadata
> using a user-generated vocabulary, and being able to query it internally
Jesse (Pathoschild gmail.com> writes:
> If we simply extend MediaWiki to support metadata for works or
> authors, the metadata is limited to these types and fields. Public
> metadata can be extended and parsed in any way the local community or
> our content users feel useful. Users can add their o
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Jesse (Pathoschild)
wrote:
> Unfortunately, categories and database queries are inadequate for our
> needs. Someone can indeed navigate to Categories::Works::Works by
> genre::Non-fiction::Governmental::Biographies::Ancient biographies,
> and they'll find all 5 pa
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Aryeh Gregor
wrote:
> What we're talking about (microdata, RDFa, RDF, etc.) is categorically
> useless for Wikimedia-internal use. The only use that any of this
> metadata stuff has to us is exposing info to *non*-Wikimedia agents.
> For internal use, we can make
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Jesse (Pathoschild)
wrote:
> Wikisource, especially, is in desperate need of metadata. We have some
> 140,000 pages on the English wiki alone that represent poems,
> chapters, tables of contents, and so forth. These are essentially
> disorganized: we have human-usa
Trying my best to limit length of reply.
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 23:16, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>> [ed: Microdata] maps well to the
>> RDF model if you want it, but doesn't force authors to think in terms
>> of subject, predicate, object triples.
>
> Well, Microdata /almost
Hello,
The discussion so far has been about biographical data on Wikipedia
and licensing data on Commons, but other projects have their own needs
for it.
Wikisource, especially, is in desperate need of metadata. We have some
140,000 pages on the English wiki alone that represent poems,
chapters,
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Aryeh Gregor
wrote:
> Microdata is also safe to use for deployment. Like other web
> technologies maintained by the WHATWG, it will not change once it's
> widely adopted, and Wikipedia adoption would probably count as wide
> adoption by itself. Note that microdat
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> I don't know if you intended the tone of
> your e-mail in the way that I read it, but it came off as purposefully
> misleading based on the discussions that both you and I have had as
> members of the HTMLWG and WHATWG.
I do not claim to be a
Platonides wrote:
> Both of you seem to think that wikipedia editors would start placing
> RDF/Microdata interleaved with wiki markup.
> I don't think that could ever happen. The "direct markup" would be
> inserted into infoboxes (which are themselves wikitext, although they
> can get quite complex
I could see the flames rising at the start of this thread, so thank you both
for steering away from them.
Essentially we have a format war here, in which one or other format will win
and the other will go extinct. It might be being fueled by altruism rather
than capitalism, and that's brillian
2010/1/16 Platonides :
> Both of you seem to think that wikipedia editors would start placing
> RDF/Microdata interleaved with wiki markup.
> I don't think that could ever happen. The "direct markup" would be
> inserted into infoboxes (which are themselves wikitext, although they
> can get quite c
Philip wrote:
> Certainly, but if wiki editors are *able* to do it by hand, then IMHO
> microdata is much less error-prone.
Manu Sporny wrote:
> I don't think that the best approach for Wikipedia is to allow direct
> Microdata or RDFa markup. There are already many templates in use at
> Wikipedia
2010/1/16 Manu Sporny :
> I don't know if you intended the tone of
> your e-mail in the way that I read it, but it came off as purposefully
> misleading based on the discussions that both you and I have had as
> members of the HTMLWG and WHATWG.
[...]
> We have a very friendly community
- d.
_
Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> I don't suppose that the members of this list appreciate the epic
> Microdata vs. RDFa battle leaking into this mailing list
I wouldn't use such terms to frame the debate. The Microformats,
Microdata and RDFa communities are not "battling" or working against
each other -
I don't suppose that the members of this list appreciate the epic
Microdata vs. RDFa battle leaking into this mailing list, but I want
to address a few inaccuracies below.
Introduction: I work for Opera Software and have been active in the
WHATWG and W3C HTML WG devloping HTML5 for the last year a
Aryeh Gregor gmail.com> writes:
> This is about as long as before, but it might still be wrong. The
> general points I made are still accurate, anyway.
The general points that you made were riddled with technical
inaccuracies, bad advice, and if implemented by the MediaWiki community,
would have
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Aryeh Gregor
wrote:
> Sample RDFa code to say an image is under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license seems
> to be something like this, based off the license generator on the CC
> website:
>
> [[
>
> ...
> src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/EmeryMolyneux-
Duesentrieb checked in RDFa support for MediaWiki in r58712:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/58712
I discussed this with him at some length, and Tim commented on how it
ties into the parser. I'd like to discuss this a bit more broadly
because we're talking about extending wi
56 matches
Mail list logo
