RDFa Versus Microformats

Uploaded on

Presentation at MUPPLE workshop, September 2009, Nice, France

Presentation at MUPPLE workshop, September 2009, Nice, France

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. RDFa versus Microformats: Exploring the Potential for Semantic Interoperability of Mash-up Personal Learning Environments
    Vladimir Tomberg, Mart Laanpere
    Tallinn University, Narva mnt. 25, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia
    vtomberg@tlu.ee, mart.laanpere@tlu.ee
  • 2. A Course as dynamic process
    Mash-up PLE have become a fast developing trend
    Course is not just a syllabus, it also involves various dynamic processes
    These processes can be described by way of metadata using
  • 3. Which Metadata we need?
    • Course has:
    • 4. Learning goals
    • 5. Schedule of learning activities (assignments, discussions)
    • 6. Registered participants (teachers, students)
    • 7. Different types of resources
    • 8. We usually can extract such information from LMS, but how it is possible in case of PLE?
  • Formats for PLE metadata
    (X)HTML is a main format for PLE
    (X)HTML syntaxes are not designed for carrying the semantic data
    Different technologies were introduced in the past
    Microformats and RDFa are two most widespread
  • 9. Scenario
    Teacher publishes a Course’s information by using a web application — blog, wiki, forum or personal web site
    Information by means of mash-ups is delivered to learners
  • 10. Scenario: Data
    • The Course can contain:
    • 11. (meta)data about the course syllabus,
    • 12. pre-requisite and target competencies,
    • 13. amount of credits,
    • 14. dates for start and end of the course,
    • 15. the criteria and form of a final assessment,
    • 16. contact information of teachers and other participants
  • Scenario: Features
    Teacher can constantly update the course information during time
    Teacher assigns lectures, announces an assessment and evaluates learners
    Learners thus constantly have the fresh information on everything that happens on a course
  • 17. Microformats
    HTML code:
    <a href = "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" rel="license">cc by 2.0</a>
    In browser:
    cc by 2.0
  • 18. Microformats
    Standard (X)HTML attributes 'class', 'rel' and 'rev' are used for metadata storing purpose
    Not standardized, but well specified and widely known
    Endless development
    Have no ontologies, formal descriptions or schemes
  • 19. RDFa
    HTML code:
    <a rel="cc:license" href="http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/"> Creative Commons License </a>
    In browser:
    Creative Commons License
  • 20. RDFa
    • Standardized by W3C
    • 21. Uses 10 reserved tags, 5 of them from XHTML2
    • 22. Can be applied for RDFa only to XHTML2, not for HTML, XHTML1
    • 23. Mixing different namespaces in one document is possible, for example 'dc:' and 'cc:' simultaneously
    • 24. Hard to suppose prospect because of end of XHTML 2 support from W3C
  • Technological Comparison
  • 25. Semantic Comparison
  • 26. Application for educational needs
  • 27. Implementation on Wordpress
    Vladimir Tomberg, Mart Laanpere
    Towards Lightweight LMS 2.0: A Blog-based Approach to Online Assessment,
    EC-TEL 2008 Maastricht, The Netherlands
  • 28. Under development at present
  • 29. Conclusion
    • Which technology is more suitable?
    • 30. Microformats
    • 31. Good simplicity of adaptation to web;
    • 32. Limited vocabulary for educational needs;
    • 33. RDFa
    • 34. More flexible and semantically rich;
    • 35. Unclear prospect because XHTML2 developing is stopped