On 18/01/10 14:46, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
The point is, anyway, that enabling something like SMW (probably with fewer features) is orthogonal to RDFa/microdata/RDF support -- the extension could incidentally output RDF or whatnot, but it doesn't matter for internal use.
Perhaps the right approach for us would be to have "some" syntax for providing this info, and then generating html5 microdata and/or rdfa into the rendered html, write the triple into a smw backend store, and provide rdf/xml/n3/whatever output via the api.
there are three aspects here: specify, store, output. perhaps we should look at them separately.
-- daniel
I definitely wouldn't recommend a flat triples store as the only storage representation.
Based on past experience with just such a system, while it's formally semantically equivalent to higher-level descriptions, it's definitely much harder to munge, because you have to reverse-engineer all the reification that was needed to flatten the data into triples in order to be able to see the higher-level patterns; it's much easier to just store the higher-level description in the obvious natural way, and generate the triples representation, and any other metadata output needed, from that.
-- Neil