PUBLIC MARKS with search musings

Even having written an RDFa parser, having written code to mark up documents with RDFa, having taught it, I still cannot write RDFa past a trivial example and be 100% sure that it will produce what I was aiming to produce.

P.S. your reCAPTCHA is extremely frustrating, I only get it right 30% of the time. Google+ integration of comments would be awesome.

the vast majority of web developers don’t make a noise about what they do

It is far far easier to snipe from the sidelines than it is to put in the effort to attend telcons and face-to-face meetings, to engage on mailing lists, to write specifications and implementations and tutorials.

A publisher can't depend on anything being broadly implemented just because some spec says a browser MUST do something. A MUST in a specification isn't a law; it provides no push. The only role a MUST in standard actually has is to provide a check-box for implementations; if the vendor of the implementation says "I implement standard X", they mean, among other things, "I follow every MUST in the spec, and I also follow every SHOULD except when I have a good reason not to, which I can explain". That's it. That's all the standard really does, is give you something to measure against.

Recently InfoQ did a good summary of the debates around the apparent (to some) limitations of REST when it comes to creating good Web services. At issue is that REST APIs seem to expose "CRUDy" services that fly in the face of years of good services design, particularly when they are just read/write interfaces instead of the richer, full REST architecture (more on what this is later.) The discussion was spurred by Arnon Rotem-Gal-Oz's assertion recently that CRUD is bad for REST, which in my opinion is close but not quite right.

loud paper is a zine, and now blog, dedicated to increasing the volume of architectural discourse. It is a slambamgetitoutthere way of linking architectural thoughts, musings, and new work with the culture at large.

So, when I first picked up a guitar, the first song I sat down to learn, by ear, was Stairway to Heaven, not “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star”. So goes my experience with Django :)

There are two advantages of using a resource here rather than a literal value:You can associate other metadata with the term. You can more accurately and easily associate multiple documents that use the same term.

One result of making data available is that it enables you and others to easily construct nice visualisations over the data, and maybe spot useful patterns within it.

using a SPARQL query as a Data Source for a Google Visualisation of the MP’s expenses data.

One of the particular points of contention at the meeting was whether URIs for non-information resources (ie for real-world and conceptual things) should contain dates or version numbers, or not.

I’m really interested in other approaches that people have used to address the requirement of associating metadata with triples, particularly using RDFa. I’m also interested to know if anyone has existing vocabularies for periods of time with known start/end dates and included dates.