While the RDF module will be enabled by default on freshly installed Drupal 7 sites, there will be many people migrating from Drupal 6 to Drupal 7 which won't notice this new module, or if they ever look at the list of modules, we need to have a more catchy description of what the module does and why Joe would want to enable this module. The RDF module in the modules page is described as: Allows to map the site data structure to RDF and export it in RDFa.
While this is accurate and kind of understandable for geeks, it won't fly for newbies.
We should not force this module to be enabled during the upgrade process, but maybe we could have a message saying: "hey, there is this set of new modules in Drupal 7, do you want to enable them?" Do we have such a feature already in core, or anyway to draw the attention of the user to check the modules page and see if they want to enable more modules? RDF is not the only module to be new in Drupal 7, there is also dashboard, overlay, shortcut and toolbar.
Comment | File | Size | Author |
---|---|---|---|
#21 | 616552_rdf_description_2.patch | 595 bytes | scor |
#19 | 616552_rdf_description.patch | 680 bytes | christefano |
#14 | rdf-description.patch | 681 bytes | yoroy |
Comments
Comment #1
Anonymous (not verified) CreditAttribution: Anonymous commentedscor and I have been brainstorming and have come up with ideas for the module description. Please comment or add your own!
Because the contrib module is going to have a lot more functionality (and because we need to keep this module description short and meaningful to non-savvy users), this description only touches the surface of what the RDF mappings can do.
Ideas so far
Other ideas
Semantics
HTML markup
relationship
content - meaning
machine - crawlers
and provide better search results (more accurate, more targeted, more usable, more relevant)
useful and visually appealing search results
extract and transfer content from one site to the other
present more information about the page
Sites we've been using to brainstorm
Comment #2
christefano CreditAttribution: christefano commentedThanks for bringing this up at the meeting, Lin! I would word it something like this:
I'm not so sure about including the word "advanced" but it's technically true and is a good selling point.
Comment #3
mlncn CreditAttribution: mlncn commentedNothing quite clicked for me with any of the examples but it took me a week to come up with my own:
I guess dropping the opening RDFa if we have to fit with the "X module" setup.
Comment #4
legion80 CreditAttribution: legion80 commentedHere are my stabs. Given that it has to be a short description, I tried to focus on the big gains of using the module:
And all together now:
Comment #5
scor CreditAttribution: scor commentedThe string freeze is tomorrow so we need to make a decision on this and RTBC it! Adding tags hoping it'll help to get more reviews...
Comment #6
scor CreditAttribution: scor commentedThis is a mix of all the propositions above:
Comment #7
Anonymous (not verified) CreditAttribution: Anonymous commentedOn reading all these again with a fresh eye, I like the first part of Ben's:
RDFa makes the data of your site more available and understandable to other applications, including search engines.
Comment #8
yoroy CreditAttribution: yoroy commentedMakes other applications (like search engines) better understand the relationships within your content and between web pages.
edit: I only have a vague understanding of what RDFa does. The search engine example is good to have in there, it can trigger people to look further into it because everybody is into SEO, right? :-). Otherwise, I tried to make the shortest posible variant that captures most of the proposals so far. 'Applications' is better than web sites in this context (the search engine example tells you it's still about *web* applications/sites).
Comment #9
Cloud CreditAttribution: Cloud commentedHow about:
Tags HTML structures on your website with metadata so that they can be identified and leveraged by other systems (e.g. to enhance search engine results, to allow site interoperability and improved aggregation).
Comment #10
yoroy CreditAttribution: yoroy commentedToo many and too difficult words. "Tags with metadata" is quite explicit and good though.
Tags your content with metadata to let other applications (like search engines) better understand relationships within your content.
(It'd be good to start working on refining one proposal instead of coming up with totally new ones each time, try to build off of the given variations.)
Comment #11
Cloud CreditAttribution: Cloud commentedOkay, yoroy, points taken.
It's not just relationships (e.g. replies) but also attributes (dates, titles, etc.) - also, I didn't like most of the previous ones that focused on just search engines. It's good to highlight that, but it's not the sole advantage.
Thanks,
John.
--
Comment #12
Cloud CreditAttribution: Cloud commentedHow about (revising yoroy's):
Could even leave out some of the bracketed stuff...
Comment #13
scor CreditAttribution: scor commentedThanks yoroy and John for chiming in! I like "tags with metadata". How does "enrich with metadata" sound? maybe not as meaningful for newbies.... anyone feel free to roll a patch so we can RTBC this.
Comment #14
yoroy CreditAttribution: yoroy commentedEnriches your content with metadata to let other applications (e.g. search engines, aggregators) better understand its relationships and attributes.
Comment #15
Cloud CreditAttribution: Cloud commentedSounds great - thanks yoroy!
Comment #16
scor CreditAttribution: scor commentedtime to RTBC this. thanks for all the suggestions!
Comment #17
yoroy CreditAttribution: yoroy commentedGreat. Thanks for playing along Cloud! :-)
Comment #18
webchickCommitted to HEAD. Thanks! Welcome to the core team, Cloud. :)
Comment #19
christefano CreditAttribution: christefano commentedThis removes the extra period in the patch that was committed.
Comment #21
scor CreditAttribution: scor commentedhow did we all miss that extra period :'( - this patch won't apply. rerolled.
Comment #22
christefano CreditAttribution: christefano commentedOops, I patched against the wrong version. I second the RTBC of #21.
Comment #23
webchickOh, no! :) Good catch.
Committed to HEAD. Thanks!