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