<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Semantic Technology Conference wrap</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/03/11/semtech-wrap/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/03/11/semtech-wrap/</link>
	<description>My opinions only. I do not represent any organization in this publication.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:21:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike Linksvayer &#187; Long tail of metadata</title>
		<link>http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/03/11/semtech-wrap/#comment-10579</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Linksvayer &#187; Long tail of metadata</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2006 05:03:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/03/11/semtech-wrap/#comment-10579</guid>
		<description>[...] I see little chance of points one and three of occuring. However, I don&#8217;t see this as a particularly bad thing. Point three will occur, almost by default: the simplest and most widely deployed microformats (e.g., reltag, relnofollow and rellicense) are also valid RDFa &#8212; the predicate (e.g., tag, nofollow, license) appearing in the default namespace to a RDFa application. More complex microformats may be handled by hGRDDL, which is no big deal as a microformat-aware application needs to parse each microformat it cares about anyway. From an RDF perspective any well-crafted metadata is a plus (and the microformats group do very careful work) as RDF&#8217;s killer app is integrating heterogenous data sources. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I see little chance of points one and three of occuring. However, I don&#8217;t see this as a particularly bad thing. Point three will occur, almost by default: the simplest and most widely deployed microformats (e.g., reltag, relnofollow and rellicense) are also valid RDFa &#8212; the predicate (e.g., tag, nofollow, license) appearing in the default namespace to a RDFa application. More complex microformats may be handled by hGRDDL, which is no big deal as a microformat-aware application needs to parse each microformat it cares about anyway. From an RDF perspective any well-crafted metadata is a plus (and the microformats group do very careful work) as RDF&#8217;s killer app is integrating heterogenous data sources. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Linksvayer &#187; RDFa.info</title>
		<link>http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/03/11/semtech-wrap/#comment-9895</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Linksvayer &#187; RDFa.info</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2006 01:24:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/03/11/semtech-wrap/#comment-9895</guid>
		<description>[...] I&#8217;ve mentioned RDFa a couple times in passing. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I&#8217;ve mentioned RDFa a couple times in passing. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
