Is there fertile ground between RDFa and GRDDL?

The more I look at RDFa, the more I like it. But still it doesn’t help with the pain-point of namespaces, specifically of unmemorable URLs all over the place and qnames (or CURIEs) in content.

Does GRDDL offer a way out? Could, for instance, the namespace name for Dublin Core metadata be assigned to the prefix “dc:” in an external file, linked via transformation to the document in question? Then it would be simpler, from a producer or consumer viewpoint, to simply use names like “dc:title” with no problems or ambiguity.

This could be especially useful not that discussions are reopening around XML in HTML.

As usual, comments welcome. -m

One Response to “Is there fertile ground between RDFa and GRDDL?”

  1. Chimezie http://copia.ogbuji.net

    Interesting, Micah. So, if I understand you correctly, are you suggesting that producers can provide an RDF rendition of their XML documents that includes statements that bind prefixes to namespace URIs? And these bindings can be used to expand Curies or QNames independent of the payload? That is an interesting scenario and certainly eases the pushback associated with solutions that rely on QNames in content.

    (perhaps we can talk more about this at XML 2007?)