This is the archive of the goodrelations dicussion list

> They will keep on producing both, but following our recommendation, the
> RDF/XML will be a dump meant for crawlers only and collating the rich
> meta-data from all RDFa mark-up.

Great so we can index it ina single shot and evenctually every day

>
> So the authoritative URIs will be those from the RDFa and if you dereference
> an entity URI, you will go to the XHTML+RDFa resource.

+1

>
> hurry for that.. and they work right away in the inspector
>
> http://sindice.com/developers/inspector/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproducts.semweb.bestbuy.com%2Fy%2Fproducts%2F7590289%2F#sigma
>
>
>
> Yes, but please also show key values like price, payment, and delivery
> options, even if those require parsing a single intermediate node.
>

Martin can typeand quantity and unitprice and offering node exist on
their own really ?

 I can and will do something speacial for goodrelations for sigma but
i cannot but wonder if the model needs those pieces, Sigma also
commits to provide a simplified RDF to people who want it.

 I could understand providing not just a key value pair description
but an extra noda saying for example "iphone" (node1)   ---> "find it
on sale at bestbuy for $199" (node2, a node with all those other
properties attached) but yet more and more nodes (e.g. 2-3 like here)
seems too much.  Could i come up with a simplified node that is the
offerincludingunitpricetypeandquantity node?  to give to my sigma
users? :-) how about adding that to goodrelations?

wrt inspector and visualization please note that a complete "human
readably" rdf representation is also available e.g. here

http://sindice.com/developers/inspector/?url=http://products.semweb.bestbuy.com/y/products/7590289/&doReasoning=true#fullcontent

which is complete, albeit less intuitive than the sig.ma representation.

should we put this one first instead of sig.ma? should we allow the
user to pick which node sigma looks at (sig.ma is entity based, needs
to pick 1 node).

notice that soon we will be announcing the inspector as a
omnicomprehensive tool for validating web data, syntactically
(including the w3c validation), semantically, and more (best practice
validator including the "pedantic" web validation, linked ontology
check (already in place), so we want this to be as good as developer
friendly/useful as possible.

So suggestions are very welcome!!


> Also, you should use the ean ucc 13 property to suggest related entities,
> even if this is a literal value instead of a URI.

how to use it for suggestions?

cheers!
Giovanni