[whatwg] Trying to work out the problems solved by RDFa
danbri at danbri.org
Sat Jan 3 08:11:39 PST 2009
On 3/1/09 16:54, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> Also sprach Dan Brickley:
> > 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.
Another thought re NLP. RDFa (and similar, ...) are formats that can be
used for writing down the conclusions of NLP analysis. For example here
see the BBC's recent Muddy Boots experiment, using DBPedia (Wikipedia in
RDF) data to drive autoclassification / named entity recognition. So
here we can agree with Ian and others that text analysis has much to
offer, and still use RDFa (or other semantic markup - i'll sidestep that
debate for now) as a notation for marking up the words with a
machine-friendly indicator of their NLP-guessed meaning.
> Personally, I think the 'class' attribute may still be a more
> compelling option in a less-is-more way. It already exists and can
> easily be used for styling purposes. Styling is bait for authors to
> disclose semantics.
I'm sure there's mileage to be had there. I'm somehow incapable of
writing XSLT so GRDDL hasn't really charmed me, but 'class' certainly
corresponds to a lot of meaningful markup. Naturally enough it is
stronger at tagging bits of information with a category than at defining
relationships amongst the things defined when they're scattered around
the page. But that's no reason to dismiss it entirely.
Did you see the RDF-EASE draft,
http://buzzword.org.uk/2008/rdf-ease/spec? From which comes: "Ten second
sales pitch: CSS is an external file that specifies how your document
should look; RDF-EASE is an external file that specifies what your
RDF-EASE uses CSS-based syntax. More discussion here,
including question of whether it ought to be expressed using
More information about the whatwg