RDF Too
Congratulations to the RDFa folks for rolling out a release candidate of RDFa for XHTML. Now that I've finished tweaking site designs, my next step is to see about incorporating smarts into my pages, including the use of RDFa. In addition, I also want to incorporate the RDF Drupal modules more closely into the overall functionality. The SPARQL module still seems broken, but the underlying RDF modules seem to be working now.
The RDFa release candidate is timely, as I gather the BBC has decided to forgo microformats in favor of RDFa. This has re-awakened the "microformats vs. RDFa" beast, which we thought we had lulled to sleep. I guess we need to switch lullabies.
Speaking of lullabies, I had hoped to start work on a second edition of Practical RDF later this year, but it is not to be. The powers-that-be at O'Reilly aren't comfortable with a second edition, and have accepted another book proposal that covers some of what I would have covered in order to make the book livelier. There just isn't the room for both.
I am disappointed. The first version of "Practical RDF" was difficult because the specification was undergoing change, the semantic web wasn't generating a lot of interest, and there weren't that many RDF-based applications available. Now, the specs are mature, we have new additions such as RDFa, increased interest in semantics, and too many applications to fit into one book. I feel as if I started a job, and now won't be able to finish it.
One issue in the book decision is the "cool" factor. RDF and associated specifications and technologies aren't "cool", in that people don't sit around at one camp or another getting hot and bothered talking about how, "RDF is going to change the world!" However, the topic doesn't necessarily have to be "cool" if the author is "cool", and I'm not. I don't Twit-Face-Space-Friend-Camp-Chat-Speak-Shmooze. What I do is sit here quietly in my little corner of waterlogged Missouri, try out new things, and write about them. That's not really cool, and two not-cools do not make a hot book.
I don't regret my choice of lifestyle, and not being "cool". I do regret, though, leaving the "Practical RDF" job undone. Perhaps I'll do something online with PDFs or Kindle or some such thing.
As a side note, ohmigod, ThreadsML has crawled out of the ashes. (via Talis)
Comments
I was not aware of RDFa. I was mainly aware of RDF via RSS 1.0 and its attempts to incorporate RDF. While I could appreciate the logical expressiveness, it was just too hard to follow in real life. You had to look in too many places to find info. That may have just been the RSS 1.0 lens, though.
What's attractive in RDFa is that it is really just a convention for labeling data as it is already found in pages, yet it seems at a very cursory glance to have more expressive power than microformats. I liked microformats as a limited workaround for adding semantics to web pages. But the class attribute clearly gets overloaded.
The problem with RDFa is that it asks for additional attributes on elements.
Sorry to hear about the book but hope the other proposal is engaging. It's hard to leave one's mental children behind.
The second book is not mine, Bud. I have no other books after my current one.
Sorry Shelley, just assumed the other proposal was from you, sort of a second take.
Hi Shelley,
Be yourself, do what is best for you and people around you. "Practical RDF" has a place of choice in my daily work. This story is really disappointing. However I am sure you will keep up the good work via other mediums such as this blog and possibly others (PDF, Kindle? :) )
Keep up the good work Shelley,
Take care,
Fred
Thanks, Fred. Appreciate the kind words.
You're cool to us, Shelley!
Bob
You're all pretty cool to me, too, Bob.
Of course, we all like RDF, so what do we know ;-)
I can identify with the "cool" lifestreaming thing. I've dabbled in it and it won't work for me, takes too much time. In a few years it might look like hoola-hoops and bell bottoms anyway.
Although it's nice to have the backing of an O'reilly, I've noticed some dings in their armor as well, i.e., they aren't as cool as they once were either. The quality of their articles has diminished, and the blog aspect has increased. I don't think you need them to publish a book.