Solved Had An Expert On Chegg Do It And Got Them Both Wrong Chegg

Solved Had An Expert On Chegg Do It And Got Them Both Wrong Chegg The specifications rdfa core and html rdfa may be more complex than html microdata, but it’s not a "fair" comparison because they offer more features. similar to microdata would be rdfa lite (which "does work for most day to day needs"), and this spec, at least in my opinion, is way less complex than microdata. Json ld vs. microdata vs. rdfa. unless you know (and care for) consumers that don’t support all three syntaxes, it doesn’t matter. use what is easier for you and your tools. if you have no preference, i would say json ld or rdfa, because contrary to microdata, both are w3c recommendations, both can be used in non html5 contexts,.

Solved Another Chegg Expert Already Did This Question And Chegg Rdfa is an attempt to get both the flexibility of rdf and the simplicity of microformats. microdata was a response to rdfa, but with a different data model (roughly arrays and hashes rather than a relational model). unlike microformats neither dictate what sort of information is provided, just how it is encoded. The vocab attribute is defined in rdfa 1.1, but with your current doctype, you are using rdfa 1.0. your options: keep using xhtml 1.1 and rdfa 1.0, and use the xmlns:… attribute(s) instead of the invalid vocab attribute:. The property attribute comes from rdfa. rdfa 1.1 extends html5 so that it’s valid to use meta and link elements in the body, as long as they contain a property attribute. you can use both ways, html5’s name and rdfa’s property, together on the same meta element. note that you might also see meta elements with an itemprop attribute. Rdfa is a syntax for writing rdf (other examples are rdf xml and turtle). yes, this is all quite confusing!.

Solved Had An Expert On Chegg Do Them And Got Them Wrong So Chegg The property attribute comes from rdfa. rdfa 1.1 extends html5 so that it’s valid to use meta and link elements in the body, as long as they contain a property attribute. you can use both ways, html5’s name and rdfa’s property, together on the same meta element. note that you might also see meta elements with an itemprop attribute. Rdfa is a syntax for writing rdf (other examples are rdf xml and turtle). yes, this is all quite confusing!. Thank you for your answer. i have tested with rdflib 4.2.2 and it works very well. out of curiosity, is there any reason why rdfa support is dropped? do you think that rdfa's implementation in the community is fading away, and is there any plan to bring rdfa back in the future rdflib versions? –. I assume that all information provided by rdfa inside a webpage describes the ressource represented by the uri of that webpage. my question is: what are best practices for providing semantic data for subpages of a website. in my case i want to create a website for a theater group called magma using rdfa with schema.org and opengraph vocabularies. Stack overflow | the world’s largest online community for developers. Rdfa is really good, but it's complex and not that obvious to most. microdata is clear, well defined and backed by google, hence my recommendation to use that. on my sites, i've completely replace microformats with microdata, despite being a super early adopter and follower of the whole microformat system.