Found an intriguing tool from a quick google today, a score matrix for allowing you to choose the right semantic-web technology for your app.
In the line-up is Microformats, eRDF and RDFa ...
Compared for the following features, each technology is scored for your requirements;
- DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)
- HTML4 / XHTML 1.0 validity
- Custom extensions / Vocabulary mixing
- Arbitrary resource descriptions
- Explicit syntactic means for arbitrary resource descriptions
- Supported by the W3C
- Follow DCMI guidelines
- Stable/Uniform syntax specification
- Predictable RDF mappings
- Live/Web Clipboard Compatibility
- Reliable copying, aggregation, and re-publishing of source chunks. (Self-containment)
- Support for not just plain literals (e.g. typed dates, floats, or markup).
- Triple bloat prevention (only actively marked-up information leads to triples)
- Possible integration in namespaced (non-HTML) XML languages.
- Mainstream Web developers are already adopting it.
- Tidy-safety (Cleaning up the page will never alter the embedded semantics)
- Explicit support for blank nodes.
- Compact syntax, based on existing HTML semantics like the address tag or rel/rev/class attributes.
- Inclusion of newly evolving publishing patterns (e.g. rel="nofollow").
- Support for head section metadata such as OpenID or Feed hooks.
With reports of the scoring being biased towards RDFa (well of course, it's extensible stupid!), there is a caveat that it probably isn't the one to go for, for lack of a W3C Recommendation "Spec".
But since last tuesday, that should be an invalid argument now... I'd love to see this document updated to reflect that, Benjamin? :)
Either way, fill your boots ;)