[whatwg] Trying to work out the problems solved by RDFa
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen at iki.fi
Sun Jan 4 05:17:39 PST 2009
On Jan 3, 2009, at 17:05, Dan Brickley wrote:
> 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.
Some languages are higher in the pecking order than others when
software development is prioritized, and RDFa cannot level the playing
field here.
Suppose there's a use case that can be satisfactorily addressed by
applying NLP heuristics to content for the top-tier languages. Even if
there were an RDF mechanism for addressing the same use case without
relying on natural language, software aimed for serving the top-tier
languages would still do the NLP thing for the use case. Thus, the
development of the parallel RDF-based solution would be borne by the
communities using the other languages. If the other languages can't
get the users of the top-tier languages to use the same technical
solution, they are still at a disadvantage even if an alternative
technology stack is theoretically possible, because most software
development effort goes into what makes sense for the top-tier
languages without the results being applicable also for the other
languages.
Instead of bearing the cost of developing a totally alternative
technology stack for the other languages without benefiting from any
spillover from the effort done for the top-tier languages, it makes
more sense to invest the effort into building upon the reusable parts
already developed for the top-tier languages.
(Quick case study about language-sensitive technology adoption and
markets: When movable type was developed, a *subset* of the alphabet
used for German--the native language of printing press suppliers--was
adopted for Finnish. Today, hundreds of years later, digital font
availability for Finnish is better than font availability for
languages of comparable installed base that adopted *extensions* for
the alphabet used for German or that used a totally different script.
That is, NIH *still* hasn't caught up with the first-mover advantage
as far as type goes.)
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen at iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
More information about the whatwg
mailing list