[whatwg] Trying to work out the problems solved by RDFa

[Dan Brickley]

On 3/1/09 14:02, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> ...
>>> Well, it'll require an N3 parser where previously none was needed.
>>
>> RDFa requires an RDFa parser as well, and in general *any* metadata
>> requires a parser, so this point is moot. The only metadata that
>> doesn't require a parser is no metadata at all.
>
> With RDFa, most of the parsing is done by HTML. So I would call it an
> "RDFa processor". And yes, that doesn't change the fact that code needs
> to be written. But it affects the type of the code that needs to be
> written.

Somewhat of an aside, but for the curious - here is an RDFa 
parser/processor app:

http://code.google.com/p/rdfquery/wiki/Introduction
example: http://rdfquery.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/demos/markup/markup.html
js: http://rdfquery.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/jquery.rdfa.js

[...]

>> The most successful alternative is nothing at all. ^_^ We can
>> extract copious data from web pages reliably without metadata, either
>> using our human senses (in personal use) or natural-language-based
>> processing (in search engine use). It has not yet been established
>> that sufficient and significant enough problems *exist* to justify a
>> solution, let alone one that requires an addition to html. That is
>> what Ian is specifically looking for.
>
> That's what you and Ian claim. Many disagree.

My main problem with the natural language processing option is that it 
feels too close to waiting for Artificial Intelligence. I'd rather add 6 
attributes to HTML and get on with life.

But perhaps a more practical concern is that it unfairly biases things 
towards popular languages - lucky English, lucky Spanish, etc., and 
those that lend themselves more to NLP analysis. The Web is for 
everyone, and people shouldn't be forced to read and write English to 
enjoy the latest advances in Web automation. Since HTML5 is going 
through W3C, such considerations need to be taken pretty seriously.

>> As a note, this isn't the W3C's HTML WG. The WHATWG is independent
>> from the W3C.

But the WHATWG HTML5 *work* is no longer entirely independent of W3C; 
the two organizations embarked on a major joint venture. It seems 
reasonable for members of the WHATWG world to take W3C-oriented 
considerations seriously, regardless of mailing list.

cheers,

Dan

--
http://danbri.org/