W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > April to June 2008

Ta and ta ta

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 19:44:16 +0100
Message-Id: <B9AFB31C-672D-48FC-8A5F-41F05A53F6D7@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: public-grddl-comments@w3.org

(I.e., thanks and so long.)

I'd like to thank y'all for discussing this with me. It seems clear  
that there are some deep philosophical and methodological differences  
that are not easy to acknowledge much less resolve. It's pretty clear  
that we're past the likelihood of significant returns (and my  
instinctive feel that if I just explain *one more time* at *greater  
length* is probably more annoying than productive :)). I've gotten  
some useful stuff and I hope that my posts had at least the  
occasional worthwhile bit.

Just to give y'all some idea of where I'm at (for the few who care):
	1) I'm pretty sure I'll be opposing an executable at the namespace  
doc for OWL/XML. I think this is still compatible, technically  
speaking, with GRDDL but it's also clear that lots of GRDDL folks  
don't like it. I'm afraid tactical considerations will probably  
dictate whether I support the "idiosyncratic" view or doing RDDL (due  
to the charter text issue). I don't find this very satisfactory and  
I'm afraid I'll be encouraging a way of reading GRDDL that you folks  
don't find congenial. Sorry about that.

	2) I'm not sure how I feel about GRDDL overall. Harry and I  
certainly do agree about the sweet spot, I think. So that's nice. We  
disagree about the utility/harm balance of having them for W3C specs  
(and, I suspect, for microformats as well; I think it would be much  
more effective and a better fit with that community to spec and  
implement things rather than have a code on demand scenario).

	I hope people will feel the need to sharpen their arguments and  
marketing strategy a bit. Personally, I find the fact that most of  
the web can get along without this sort of code on demand to be quite  
compelling (I know it's not shared by many on this list!), and I've  
not heard a convincing argument against it. If it's just a "nice to  
have" then I would expect people to be much less adamant about it (to  
the point of strongly overreading the spec!) and to be more flexible  
toward alternative mechanisms. That, evidently, isn't the case so  
it's not clear that it's just a "nice to have". But then I think the  
arguments need to be much stronger. I don't think I'll be the only  
person who will have a world view clash.

I'll stay subscribed for a few days to catch up with all the replies,  
but I'll try to respond only off list. Feel free to contact me  
directly as well.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2008 18:42:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 May 2008 18:42:32 GMT