Re: [Wikitech-l] RDFa and Microdata in MediaWiki

[Aryeh Gregor]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Aryeh Gregor
<simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com> 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:
>
> [[
> <div id="bodyContent">
> ...
> <img 
> src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/EmeryMolyneux-terrestrialglobe-1592-20061127.jpg";
> width="640" height="480" id="mw-image">
> ...
> <p><span xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";
> href="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage"; property="dc:title"
> rel="dc:type">EmeryMolyneux-terrestrialglobe-1592-20061127.jpg</span>
> by <span xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"; href="#mw-image"
> property="cc:attributionName" rel="cc:attributionURL">Bob Smith</span>
> is licensed under a <a rel="license"
> href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/";>Creative
> Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
> ]]

It was pointed out in #whatwg on freenode that to be fair, I should
leave off the fact that the work being pointed to is a still image
(since Microdata does).  On the other hand, the span needs to point to
the actual URL of the image, not just an ID, so I *think* this is the
markup I actually wanted:

[[
<div id="bodyContent">
...
<img 
src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/EmeryMolyneux-terrestrialglobe-1592-20061127.jpg";
width="640" height="480">
...
<p><span xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";
property="dc:title">EmeryMolyneux-terrestrialglobe-1592-20061127.jpg</span>
by <span xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#";
href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/EmeryMolyneux-terrestrialglobe-1592-20061127.jpg";
property="cc:attributionName" rel="cc:attributionURL">Bob Smith</span>
is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/";>Creative
Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
]]

This is about as long as before, but it might still be wrong.  The
general points I made are still accurate, anyway.

Second, it was pointed out that the RDFa example here mixes two
existing vocabularies, while the Microdata example uses a vocabulary
specifically designed for our use-case.  However, I think this is fair
-- we'd likely use the standard applicable vocabularies in each case,
and the Microdata vocabulary is simpler for our primary use-case.

Third of all, it was also pointed out that RDFa 1.1 is supposed to
simpler.  But RDFa 1.1 probably has about the same deployment right
now as Microdata, i.e., roughly none, so that gets rid of RDF's
biggest advantage.

But in the end, personal opinion aside, Microdata looks like the
technology with a future right now, for good reason.  The consensus of
almost everyone I've talked to who's not precommitted to RDF is that
Microdata is the better technology.  Since existing deployment isn't a
huge issue for us given our size -- we'll become one of the biggest
web users of whichever technology we choose -- I think we should go
with Microdata as the apparent better solution, unless anyone has
reasons not to.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l