Talk:RDFa

HTML

Any thoughts on the topic of RDFa in HTML (meaning non-XHTML) ? RDFa is designed for XHTML and (AFAIK) it's impossible to use with valid HTML, although the usual fall-back provisions mean that it's "workable" here, if not actually valid. Has anyone seen word from the W3C as to their policy and plans here? RDFa docs seem at considerable variance to the world of real web design (valid HTML, standards compliance etc.) and whilst they blithely talk about using the sheer pointless craziness that is XHTML 2, the WG can't even remember if their title is the RDF in XHTML Taskforce or the RDF-in-HTML Task Force What does RDFa has to offer for those of us out in the real world of supporting IE? Andy Dingley 18:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

HTML, especially HTML5, was addressed in the updated version 1.1 of RDFa. I made some changes to the article to reflect the current situation with RDFa 1.1 and non-XMLish HTML. Ossi1967 (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Poor Example

The extended example is poor. It claims that the document represents a person (fair enough), but then it also says that the document's creator is that same person. Is Jonathan Doe his own father?

i.e. it generates these triples:

<http://example.org/john-d/> foaf:nick "John D" ;
        dc:creator "Jonathan Doe" .

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyink (talk • contribs) 15:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it is fair enough to say that the document represents a person, at least with the rather limited meaning of the word "represents" which is used in web architecture discussions. A URI should either identify a document or a person, not both otherwise you get exactly the sort of muddle described here where a person is their own creator. I therefore agree that this is a very poor example.

[1] "By design a URI identifies one resource. ..."

[2] "To say that the URI "mailto:nadia@example.com" identifies both an Internet mailbox and Nadia, the person, introduces a URI collision."

EdDavies (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've improved it a little by making the distinction between person and document. It still says that they are interested in the document on the homepage of EtcetcNeabauten.org, rather than the actual band. RDFa appears to be a way for people to make incorrect RDF statements quickly and easily. *sigh*. Starting people on RDFa is like trying to teach English via the medium of the cryptic crossword. 62.3.233.9 (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Elseware

Example invalid?

See http://www.oxygenxml.com/forum/topic2603.html Sam Pablo Kuper (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Open Grafik Terbuka Wolfcrypto (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

One-sided?

I am personally skeptical of the advantages of RDFa; I am sure there are reasons why people would criticize it, but I don't want to make uneducated or irrational claims. Surely this article would benefit from a small paragraph against the technology? Epgui (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Out-dated

xhtml5+RDFa is explained at 1.5 http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/rdfa-module.html & the part common to both html5 and xhtml5 is at 1.4.1.3 xhtml 2 is dead now. HTML5 group is now questioning RDFa. There's much updating needed here. I would do it, but I'm not as well informed about the debates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcanista (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

RDFa is no longer related to XHTML2. It was updated so it can be used without the XML-specific namespaces. The W3C published a document about the usage of RDFa with HTML5; schema.org, the collaborative effort of the major search engines, supports RDFa. The article needed some cleanup because it didn't reflect these recent changes. The few updates I did myself should be enough. Ossi1967 (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

1 reference error, Wiki is OFFLINE

The RDFa community runs a wiki to host tools, examples, and tutorials.[1]

Is offline remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.48.198.103 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Countings, statistics and trends

The natural procedures of group, sum and average webdatacommons.org results can be used in Wikipedia?
By WP:CALC is not evident (see also discussion about Valid Routine Calculations).

The webdatacommons.org/2013-11/stats is a "near to primary" source, though consolidate some data in charts.

Some consolidation that we must to do is here (used in a "blog source" here):

• group "html-rdfa" and "html-microdata" (that are the "HTML+RDFa" representatives), and gropup all "html-mf-*" (that are the Microformats representatives).
• sum (subtotals and totals) the countings of the groups
• average the "domains" and "URLs" percentuals, as the most unbiased score.

The suggestion is to show the two charts and grouped/added/averaged results in the article.

--Krauss (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

LOV image

The home of http://lov.okfn.org/ (see 2015-02's frozen image here) show the best "reuse analysis chart"... We can use it in Wikipedia? Please show here the image if you understand how do a copy or get permissions. --Krauss (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Illustrating, can you help to improve this article?

This image was used in the context of illustrating the HTML+RDFa use in BBC.co.uk/sports, but it or an adapapted version can be used here (!).

PS: is to illustrate some section about HTML+RDFa.

--Krauss (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Accessibility

The linked source for accessibility http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/ is a speculation from 2007. Is anyone aware of screen-readers implementing RDFa support?Physikerwelt (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Protokol Grafik Terbuka

Untuk mengubah halaman web Anda menjadi objek grafik, Anda perlu dasar ke halaman Anda. Kami telah mendasarkan versi awal protokol pada RDFa yang berarti Anda akan menempatkan tambahan di halaman web Anda. Empat properti yang diperlukan untuk setiap halaman. Wolfcrypto (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)