I've started a draft spec defining high level processing and rendering rules to bind an RDF graph to HTML elements.
The UI data binding is specified using HTML attributes, which when hydrated provides valid RDFa.
The idea is to enable bringing pages of data together within a single document
Still early days, but here's the description of a subject-connected list
https://jg10.solidcommunity.net/open-with/rdf-ui-binding.html#subject-connected-list
Very happy about the opportunity to get feedback from the #RSE community at @dhtech Symposium (Mon, 14 July, 1:30-6pm) during #dh2025. 
“tei-rdfa: A Python Utility for Extracting RDFa Data from TEI-XML Documents”
https://dh-tech.github.io/2025/06/04/digital-humanities-tech-symposium-agenda/
@ACDHCH_OeAW @oeaw @fwf @adho.org @TEIConsortium @dh2025 @altbot
Releasing tei-rdfa (beta)
Python utility for extracting RDFa data from TEI-XML documents Resolves native TEI namespace formatting (through <prefixDef>)
https://pypi.org/project/tei-rdfa/ https://github.com/timofruehwirth/tei_rdfa
We welcome beta testing, feedback & contribution via #GitHub.
Boosts will be very much appreciated.
The four most popular ways to use RDF-based metadata on websites are RDFa-Core, RDFa-Lite, Microdata, and inline JSON-LD.
I can’t use RDFa-Lite because I need rel HTML attributes. rel silently upgrades RDFa-Lite to RDFa-Core, which parses differently. I doubt all parsers upgrade correctly; some will try to parse RDFa-Core as RDFa-Lite. Conformant RDFa parsers upgrade RDFa-Lite pages to RDFa-Core despite many authors only being familiar with RDFa-Lite. I suppose resources like Schema.org and Google’s documentation only documenting RDFa-Lite markup worsens the confusion.
With RDFa split between two incompatible alternatives with a confusing upgrade mechanism, the alternatives are Microdata and JSON-LD. I use structured data extensively; JSON-LD would duplicate most of the page. Let’s use this relatively short article as an example. Exruct can convert the embedded Microdata into a massive JSON document featuring JSON-LD. Take a look at the JSON-LD and HTML side by side. Microdata attributes take a fraction of the footprint, encode the same information, and don’t require duplicating nearly the entire page.
Originally posted on seirdy.one: See Original (POSSE). #Microdata #SemanticWeb #RDFa #HTML
Working, for the first time, w/ #RDFa in a #TEI / #XML framework, one question has popped up:
is it required/standard/good practice to hierarchically nest the elements carrying the `property` attribute (for RDF predicates) w/i the element carrying `about` (for the RDF subject); and those carrying `resource` (for RDF object) w/i the `property` elements? Or is it a question of element sequence?
@egonw @eloquence sounds maybe harder to govern than already dodged cross-border tax. CC also seems to have resisted adding clauses to help define commercial use. I only know of #CCRel (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/d/d6/Ccrel-1.0.pdf), which built on Aaron Swartz's #RDFa syntax for CC licenses, to let people construct & define more complex rights docs: "publishers can use ccREL descriptions in combination with
additional attributes taken from other publishers, or with entirely new attributes", but not heard of its use.
