This thread is confusing me, but not in a bad way.
I have tried several variants of the URL to extract data from OpenGuides in RDF. All of them produce valid RDF/XML (at least, valid enough to pass the test at http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator, and more importantly for my project, to be parsed by Jena).
As far as I can tell, it ain't broke, so there's no need to fix it.
Dean
Christopher Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 04:15:21PM +0000, Nick Burch wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
However, it's unlikely to be valid RDF, because of XML encoding issues.
I thought we'd got the xml encoding stuff sorted at the hackathon?
That said, I only remember touching the xml encoding on the atom and rss feeds, not the rdf feeds, so that bit might still need some tweaking. Can anyone confirm or deny if we did fix the xml stuff for rdf too?
What OpenGuides as a project has done and what the Open Guide to Boston has done are totally different. Because of the large number of code changes that I have made[1] that are not part of the OpenGuides code, I'm running on the same code that I originally wrote the Google Maps support into. Since I don't know enough perl to set up a testing instance of OpenGuides that I can merge my changes against (combined with the database schema changes), I've accepted the fact that I have no upgrade path, and have chosen to stick with the current setup rather than spend time changing it.
So, any development within the past year is not available from boston.openguides.org.
[1] http://dev.openguides.org/ticket/11 http://dev.openguides.org/ticket/100 http://dev.openguides.org/ticket/101 http://dev.openguides.org/ticket/99
Regards,