Home
Gary Edwards's Library tagged → View Popular
Google and RDFa: what and why - bobdc.blog
Surprise—to make more money!
After the initial burst of discussion about Google putting their toe into the standardized metadata water, I started wondering about the corner of the pool they had chosen. They're not ready to start parsing any old RDFa; they'll be looking for RDFa that uses the vocabulary they somewhat hastily defined for the purpose. Why does the vocabulary define the properties that it defines?
It will be interesting to see how the big hustling SEO world adapts to this. In the words of Drupal project lead Dries Buytaert, Structured data is the new search engine optimization. When he writes "Every webmaster wanting to improve click-through rates, reduce bounce rates, and improve conversation rates, can no longer ignore RDFa or Microformats", it reminds me that when the SEO world eventually gravitates more in the RDFa direction or the microformats direction, these very quantitative, results-driven people will have some real data to explain why. I'll have to start searching their voluminous discussions out there to see what people are saying.
RDFa, Drupal and a Practical Semantic Web
CMSWire has a brief explanation of RDFa and why it's important. RDFa is also finding it's way into the Drupal CMS, which could be a game changer. Timothy Berners-Lee vision of a "Semantic Web" where the meaning of content is understood by both humans and machines depends on the emergence of capable information systems that make it transparently easy to add semantic markup. I'm not surprised that Drupal is jumping with both feet.<br><br>
"... In the march toward creating the semantic web, web content management systems such as Drupal (news, site) and many proprietary vendors struggle with the goal of emitting structured information that other sites and tools can usefully consume. There's a balance to be struck between human and machine utility, not to mention simplicity of instrumentation.<br><br>
With RDFa (see W3C proposal), software and web developers have the specification they need to know how to structure data in order to lend meaning both to machines and to humans, all in a single file. And from what we've seen recently, the Drupal community is making the best of it.
Why Google Isn't Enough - Forbes.com
One key refrain that expresses this trend is heard in companies around the world: "Why can't we have a Google inside the four walls of our company?" While at first this seems like a good idea, the problem of using search inside a company is much more complicated than just indexing documents, throwing up a search box and asking people if they feel lucky.
This week, JargonSpy explores just what "enterprise search" means and why it is a complicated challenge that is becoming increasingly urgent for most companies to solve.
-
There are three key ways that successful implementations of enterprise search differ from the search we use on the Web: richer user interfaces, business process context and heterogeneous content.
ongoing · Purple Pilcrows
First of all, I modified the approach by replacing # with ¶ per the suggestion of another Simon. Whereas # suggests Web anchors, it only suggests that to Web hacks, while ¶ has a long typographical history as a paragraph marker. Plus, it’s kind of pretty and it’s officially called a Pilcrow, which you gotta love. Now that the anchor is so evanescent, I wonder if it might work in a shade slightly less ethereally pale. ¶
Does ODF 1.2 Metadata Solve the Interop Problem? - Microsoft starts rolling out more OOXML translators |
-
A Second response to Mary Jo's, “Microsoft starts rolling out more OOXML translators” is also posted here. The title is "Standardization by Corporation".
Shish-Ka-Bob makes the assertion the ODF 1.2 metadata model will enable lossless two way conversion between MSOffice and ODF. While it's true that that intent was a key component of the original July of 2006 Metadata Requirements, the proposal was eventually stripped from the final submission made in April of 2007. I try to explain to Shish how that came about.
The second post here, "Standardization by Corporation", is a follow on to statements made to Shish. The statements have to do with the events at ISO, and what i think will eventually happen.
IMHO, ISO will follow either the AFNOR or Brittish proposals to merge ODF and OOXML. To do this they will remove entirely the coproarate vendor influence of Ecma and OASIS, and perfect the merger entirely at ISO. My post just happened to coincide with ISO Governor Mark Bryan's "Standardization by Corporations" letter. A derpressing but nevertheless very true concern.
In fact, the OpenDocument Foundation was created specifically to address our concerns about the undue influence big application vendors were exerting on ODF following the April 30th, 2005 approval of ODF 1.0 (which went on to become ISO 26300).
~ge~ - garyedwards on 2007-12-06
-
- Sorry Shish, you're wrong about ODF 1.2
Try ODF 1.5 or ODF 2.0, maybe.
The metadata requirements for ODF 1.2 actually did include two way lossless translation capability. Unfortunately these features did not survive the final cut, and were not included in the April 2007 submission.
You might also want to check the February 23, 2007 metadata proposal from Florian Reuter. That also would have delivered the goods and perhaps put ODF that grand convergence category of usefulness across desktops, servers, devices and web systems currently the exclusive domains of MS-OOXML and CDF+. Florian had devised a means of using metadata to describe the presentation aspects of content and structural objects. Very revolutionary. And based on the simple notion that bold, font, margins etc. are simply metadata about content and style objects.
Where the train came off the track had to do with the concept of an XML ID means of linking metadata to content. Not that there was anything wrong with this mechanism. It's actually quite clever. What went wrong was that Sun insisted that only those elements approved and supported by OpenOffice would be allowed to make use of XML ID metadata. For independent developers, this is a serious constraint.
Because of this constraint, the metatdata sub committee started off with six elements supported by OOo that metadata could be appied to. IBM then came in and asked for eleven more elements having to do with charts and graphs. The OpenOffice crew decided they could support this, so in they went. Then an interesting question was posed, "How are independent developers supposed to submit elements for metadata consideration?"
ODF 1.2 Metadata? You're Dreaming! Microsoft starts rolling out more OOXML translators | TalkBack on ZDNet
Microsoft starts rolling out more OOXML translators
TalkBack 22 of 26:
Next
Previous
Sorry Shish, you're wrong about ODF 1.2
Try ODF 1.5 or ODF 2.0, maybe.
The metadata requirements for ODF 1.2 actually did include two way lossless translation capability. Unfortunately these features did not survive the final cut, and were not included in the April 2007 submission.
You might also want to check the February 23, 2007 metadata proposal from Florian Reuter. That also would have delivered the goods and perhaps put ODF that grand convergence category of usefulness across desktops, servers, devices and web systems currently the exclusive domains of MS-OOXML and CDF+. Florian had devised a means of using metadata to describe the presentation aspects of content and structural objects. Very revolutionary. And based on the simple notion that bold, font, margins etc. are simply metadata about content and style objects.
Where the train came off the track had to do with the concept of an XML ID means of linking metadata to content. Not that there was anything wrong with this mechanism. It's actually quite clever. What went wrong was that Sun insisted that only those elements approved and supported by OpenOffice would be allowed to make use of XML ID metadata. For independent developers, this is a serious constraint.
Because of this constraint, the metatdata sub committee started off with six elements supported by OOo that metadata could be appied to. IBM then came in and asked for eleven more elements having to do with charts and graphs. The OpenOffice crew decided they could support this, so in they went. Then an interesting question was posed, "How are independent developers supposed to submit elements for metadata consideration?"
IBM's Elias Torres beleived that we should not restrict the use of XML ID, letting the marketplace of developers have at it, and then revisit interoperability issues at a later date to sort things out. Sun opposed this wide open approach, clearly favoring (an
-
- Sorry Shish, you're wrong about ODF 1.2
Try ODF 1.5 or ODF 2.0, maybe.
The metadata requirements for ODF 1.2 actually did include two way lossless translation capability. Unfortunately these features did not survive the final cut, and were not included in the April 2007 submission.
You might also want to check the February 23, 2007 metadata proposal from Florian Reuter. That also would have delivered the goods and perhaps put ODF that grand convergence category of usefulness across desktops, servers, devices and web systems currently the exclusive domains of MS-OOXML and CDF+. Florian had devised a means of using metadata to describe the presentation aspects of content and structural objects. Very revolutionary. And based on the simple notion that bold, font, margins etc. are simply metadata about content and style objects.
Where the train came off the track had to do with the concept of an XML ID means of linking metadata to content. Not that there was anything wrong with this mechanism. It's actually quite clever. What went wrong was that Sun insisted that only those elements approved and supported by OpenOffice would be allowed to make use of XML ID metadata. For independent developers, this is a serious constraint.
Because of this constraint, the metatdata sub committee started off with six elements supported by OOo that metadata could be appied to. IBM then came in and asked for eleven more elements having to do with charts and graphs. The OpenOffice crew decided they could support this, so in they went. Then an interesting question was posed, "How are independent developers supposed to submit elements for metadata consideration?"
ODF 1.2? You're dreaming! Microsoft starts rolling out more OOXML translators | Mary Jo ZDNet.com
-
Over the next three months, Microsoft will be releasing new and updated translators designed to aid customers who want interoperability between Microsoft’s Office Open XML (OOXML) and other document formats, including Open Document Format (ODF).
On December 4, Microsoft began rolling out three new translators that it plans to make available this month: A 1.1 update of its translator for Word; an Open XML spreadsheet translator and a presentation translator.
Additionally, in February 2008, Microsoft will deliver the final version of its translator designed to provide interoperability between the Chinese-government backed Uniform Office Format (UOF) file format and OOXML.
Microsoft announced the creation of the SourceForge-hosted Open Translation Project in July 2006. At that time, the Softies said the translator-focused initiatve was started “in response to government requests for interoperability with ODF because they work with constituent groups that use that format.”
Vijay Rajagopalan, a Microsoft Principal Architect, provided the update on the OOXML-ODF translation work during the XML 2007 conference on Decmeber 4.
During the XML 2007 interoperability panel — sponsored by Microsoft and of which Rajagopalan was a part — the ongoing battles that have raged for the past couple of years between Microsoft and the backers of ODF were a mere sidenote.
ODF Civil War: Bulll Run - Suggested Changes on the Metadata proposal - OASIS ODF
-
This is the famous marbux response to Sun regarding Sun's attempt to partially implement ODF 1.2 XML-RDF metadata. It's a treasure.
There is one problem with marbux's statement though. We had decided long ago not to fork ODF even if the five iX "interoperability enhancement" proposals were refused by the OASIS ODF TC. This assurance was provided to Massachusetts CIO Louis Gutierrez witht he the first ODF iX proposal submitted on July 12th, 2006. Louis ended up signing off on three iX proposals before his resignation October 4th, 2006.
The ODF iX enhancements were essential to saving ODF in Massachusetts. Without them, there was no way our da Vinci plug-in could convert existing MSOffice documents and processes to ODF with the needed round trip fidelity.
For nearly a year we tried to push through some semblance of the needed iX enhancements. We also tried to push through a much needed Interoperability Framework, which will be critical to any ISO approval of ODF 1.2.
Our critics are correct in that every iX effort was defeated, with Sun providing the primary opposition.
Still rather than fork ODF, we are simply going to move on.
On October 4th, 2006, all work on ODF da Vinci ended - not to be resumed unless and until we had the ODF iX enhancements we needed to crack the MSOffice bound workgroup-workflow business process barrier.
In April of 2007, with our OASIS membership officially shredded by OASIS management, bleeding from the List Enhancement Proposal doonybrook, and totally defeated with our hope - the metadata XML-RDF work, we threw in the towel.
Since then we've moved on to CDF, the W3C Compound Document format. Incredibly, CDF is able to do what ODF can not. With CDF we can solve the three primary problems confronting governments and MSOffice bound workgroups everywhere.
The challenge for these groups is to convert their existing documents, applications and processes to Internet ready XML.
Of course, for 95% of these groups, the documents, applications and processes are MSOffice bound.
The three problems that must be overcome are:
...... Compatibiltiy with existing documents, including MSOffice binary and xml docuemnts.
...... Interoperability with existing applications, including MSOffice.
...... Grand Convergence - a portable file format able to transit across desktop, server, device and web information systems. (Think SOA, SaaS, Web 2.0 here as well as iPhone).
We believe that MS-OOXML was designed to accomplish these three tasks, but only for the emerging MS Stack of desktop, servers, device and web systems.
It's also clear to us that MS-OOXML replaces HTML in the MS Stack, as well as nearly all the W3C Internet technologies.
Which is why we insist that ODF is not the target of MS-OOXML. HTML is. With the Internet the prize!
ODF was simply not designed to address these three problems. In fact, whenever these issues came up at OASIS, Sun would brush these concerns off with, "That's outside the Charter and out of scope". What they are reluctant to admit to is that they have opposed efforts to include these issues in the Charter. The very first OASIS OpenOffice XML TC meeting is a case in point. Phil Boutros of Stellent made the first "compatibility-interoperabilty" charter proposal before the first vote to accept the Sun proposed cahrter was held. Somehow Sun managed to put off the needed changes until members has a chance to fully discuss the issue. Now, five years later, with too too many, "That's outside the Charter and out of scope" comments from Sun to count, the ODF Charter remains the same.
So here we are. ODF was not designed for the same purposes as MS-OOXML. ODF was designed to be a desktop office suite file format. End of story,
So we had no choice but to turn to another file format. Incredibly CDF works! Although CDF was designed for "grand convergence", it works wonderfully well to solve the file format compatibility - application interoperability issues.
One last point about Bruce d'Arcus. We believe he traded ODF 1.2 Interoperability for Sun's promise of advanced bibliographic features in OpenOffice. Which is okay. Bruce has fought a long hard fight to get that. But what might work for him doesn't necessarily mean it's good for anyone else.
Especially since ODF 1.2 in it's current state will be rejected by ISO. A May 2006 ISO Directive, issued in response to a rather secret request that ODF be exempt from ISO Interoperability Requirments, refused to grant the exception.
The OpenDocument Foundation's last offical act as a member of OASIS will be the submission of the "Universal Interoperability Framework" Proposal. The intent is to save ODF 1.2 at ISO by bringing ODF 1.2 in line with ISO Interoperability Requirments.
Although we've moved on, it's too painful to think of the mess that awaits those who believe in ODF, and have put years of work into that effort. Come February, MS-OOXML will not be able to fulfill the resolution requirements, and will not be acepted by ISO. Weeks later, perhaps in May or as early as April, ODF 1.2 will also be rejected based on ISO Interop requirements and a warning already given but not heeded. Leaving the world a mess, and nothing to stop Microsoft but CDF.
~ge~
- garyedwards on 2007-10-11
-
From our perspective it would be better to aim for doing the job in ODF 1.2, even if that requires delay. We will oppose ODF
1.2 at ISO unless the interoperability warts are cleaned up. What the market requires is no longer in doubt. See the slides linked above and further presentations linked from this page, <
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6474/5935>. Substantial progress toward those goals would seem to be mandatory to maintain Europe's preference for a harmonized set of file formats that uses ODF to provide the common functionality. Delaying commencement of such work enhances the likelihood that governments will tire of waiting for ODF to become interoperable with MS Office and simply go with MOOXML. We may not be able to force Microsoft to participate in the harmonization work, but we will be in a far better position if we have done everything we can in aid of that interoperability without Microsoft's assistance.
As the situation stands, we have what is known in the U.S. as a "Mexican stand-off," where neither side has taken a solitary step toward what Europe has requested. We have decided to do that work via a fork of ODF; it is up to this TC whether it wishes to cooperate in that effort.
What will it be for ODF? Continuation of limited interop? Or a transition to Universal Interoperability?
- Marbux is clearly at the top of his game here as he hammers the interoperability issue. - garyedwards on 2007-08-23
-
Add Sticky Note
- Preserving metadata! Preserving application specific information. Preserving "unknown" information inside of a document - on 2007-08-23
-
Unless we add conformance requirements for the preservation of metadata and processing instructions, the less featureful apps will never be able to round-trip documents with the more featureful apps. Our language should require that. Personally, I believe that the software-as-an-end-point client-side office suites are dinosaurs at the end of their era. They are being finished off by a thousand cuts as users spend less and less time using them and more and more time using other apps, such as web apps. ODF either develops methods for interoperability among all apps or it will die along with the office suites.
E.g., Microsoft knows this and is busily migrating its Office development budget across the Sharepoint/Exchange server hubs to the network. Meanwhile, this TC fiddles with preserving the 1995 software-as-an-endpoint vision.
Re: [office-metadata] Suggested Changes on the Metadata proposal
-
Surprising post from Sun's Michael Brauer supporting the mandatory "shall - must" preservation of the metadata XML:id. Preservation of metadata information is critical to the high fidelity "round trip" interoperable exchange of ODF documents.
Marbux is currently locked into a raging interoperability battle with the ODF Metadata Sub Committee where it's been proposed that preservation of metadata be optional!
The entire thread is located here:
ODF-Metadata-Proposal-22August2007
This is one worth watching. The fight to limit ODF interoperability continues. Marbux is a distinguished Universal Interoperability expert with a blazing background in International Trade Agreements and anti trust based on interoperability violations. - garyedwards on 2007-08-23
-
Add Sticky Note- A metadata aware ODF implementation *shall* not remove the xml:id
attributes defined in sections [?] or change its values unless the
removal or modification is the result of an edit operation caused be the
user, or a similar action taken by some automatic processing of the
document.- The road to universal interoperability! Document exchange demands that applications preserve information that other applications need. - on 2007-08-23
» Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee Unplugged: Semantic Web better than APIs for data access
-
Great explanation of the Semantic Web, RDF, SparQL versus big vendor Web API's
- garyedwards on 2007-06-08
-
the general idea is for there to be a layer of data on the Internet that he calls the “data bus” and the way the data bus works is not too different from how we’ve heard Microsoft’s WinFS filesystem described where connectivity between related data items is organic rather than synthesized. For example, whereas today, a mashup developer may have to call upon two APIs to show where a specific Starbucks is on a map, the Semantic Web approach might involve little more than a simple query of that data bus using a query technology called SparQL.
What is RDF and what is it good for?
-
On the Semantic Web, computers do the browsing for us. The SemWeb enables computers to seek out knowledge distributed throughout the Web, mesh it, and then take action based on it. To use an analogy, the current Web is a decentralized platform for distributed presentations while the SemWeb is a decentralized platform for distributed knowledge. RDF is the W3C standard for encoding knowledge.
Metadata Examples - Office Wiki
-
The OASIS ODF Metadata XML::RDF Sub Committee is racing towards completion, preparing the final proposal. Two use cases have become the focus for how we deal with structure related metadata and content related metadata. This is the Metadata Examples Page where the discussion will be thrashed out.. The split content issue remains a problem. Use of XML-ID has been proposed for this use case, which really isn't in conflict with the wide ranging RDFa solution used eslewhere. There is no conflict. Where we do have a conflict is with trying to force the XML-ID approach onto everythign else. No matter how you look at that approach, you come away with a sense of, "When your a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
Florian's comments:
Generic elements as child of style elements - ODF 1.0 .... RDF/XML
All children of style elements are RDF/XML encoded are metadata too
RDF/XML is more specfici than just generic XML
Foreign elements and alienn elements allowed in paragraph elements (ODF 1.0) can continue and be extended with RDF/XML
Bernd's concerns:
Cross check against Bernd's metadata strem examples. No issue linking metadata to content. Still need examples of linking RDF/XML and RDFa - search for use cases where one or the other does not work. Keep in mind that RDFa is not yet a W3C standard, it's just a proposal. RDFa is still the best way of linking to content inside XML, but it's not proper RDF/XML.
- garyedwards on 2007-01-24
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in metadata
-
SCORM
SCORM
Items: 23 | Visits: 27
Created by: Miguel Ángel Sánchez
-
SCORM
Links about SCORM and other...
Items: 38 | Visits: 51
Created by: Mathieu Plourde
-
Records Management
Links for Records Management
Items: 249 | Visits: 15
Created by: Ulrich Kampffmeyer
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo