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 ?
2009/1/30 Daniel Kinzler <daniel(a)brightbyte.de>
Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
There is RDF, there is Semantic MediaWiki. Why should one get a push and
other not. Semantic MediaWiki is used on
production websites. Its
is continuously being improved. No cobwebs there.
SMW is of course an option for integrating metadata, but I expect it will
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
readable stuff to the human readable stuff we already have. It's basically
annotating templates, and retrieving that annotation.
Wikitech-l mailing list