Hoi, When we invest time in implementing time in the RDF extension, the chances of the eventual support of Semantic MediaWiki are severely diminished. It may take less time to get the RDF extension in shape, this is your hunch, but it is a choice only made because it is quick. Not because it provides the most benefits.
What is a translation but another type of annotation ? Thanks, GerardM
2009/1/30 Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de
Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
Hoi, There is RDF, there is Semantic MediaWiki. Why should one get a push and
the
other not. Semantic MediaWiki is used on production websites. Its
usability
is continuously being improved. No cobwebs there.
SMW is of course an option for integrating metadata, but I expect it will take considerably more time to review that and get it usable on wmf sites.
Having machine readable information is great, but would it not make more sense to have human readable text. As in not only English ?
Sure, but I don't see the connection. The RDF extension just adds the machine readable stuff to the human readable stuff we already have. It's basically for annotating templates, and retrieving that annotation.
-- daniel
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l