W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-data-tf@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Wrapping Up

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:02:47 +0100
Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Message-Id: <1FD05339-F4C7-41F3-9679-C2CE43A491C9@w3.org>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Gregg,

I have just given a general answer to Jeni, touching also on the issue of the mapping document[1]. Some more comments below.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-data-tf/2011Dec/0044.html


On Dec 21, 2011, at 19:19 , Gregg Kellogg wrote:

> On Dec 21, 2011, at 1:27 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
>> Jeni,
>> 
>> I am just wondering. Do you think it is possible to give some more 'weight' to the two publications that the TF has produced? I know this cannot be before the end of the year, but the 'charter' of a task force is not such a rigid timing as that of a working group. The TF is under the SWIG, ie, it is perfectly o.k. to publish an IG Note for both documents (microdata->RDF and the one you produced). What it would require is to publish a working draft first to give a larger community a possibility to comment (that just means getting the two editor's draft through the publishing process, I can help in that), and then close the work by publishing an IG Note with possible comments included. I believe both can be done in January.
>> 
>> As for the two issues you raise below: very formally, a microdata->RDF Recommendation cannot be published until the microdata itself, ie, the HTML5 document, is not a recommendation. After all, things may change until then. One more reason to give to the current document a more 'official' standing.
> 
> Also note that the microdata to RDF spec is written in an open-ended form, as we expected a working group to take positions on various issues, so we were trying to avoid doing that. If the TF is going to publish the document, we should probably take those positions in the draft.

Yes, I agree. We should do that. And I think that our guidance should take into account that the single biggest usage of microdata, at this moment, is schema.org; ie, it should be possible to create a microdata->RDF mapping that handles schema.org vocabularies the same way as it would be encoded in RDFa Lite, so that to ensure interoperability on that level. 

> The main thing open is the existence and use of the registry:
> 
> * Base URI of vocabularies for generating @itemprop IRIs
> * Method for generating IRIs, but I think we've pretty much settled against the "contextual" method.
> * Whether to place any, multiple or no property values in an RDF container, or as Ivan suggested, add values both as objects and in an RDF Collection, which is also an object.
> 
> There are a couple of other issues that need to be added into the document too.
> 
> I'll do another pass to add these issues to the document, but we need to decide if we're if the TF should take a position on these and reduce them down to a consensus view, or leave it to a WG.

Based also on my comment in that other mail, I think we should take a position. A WG and a Recommendation is way too much down the line for now, essentially due to the slow process on HTML5. Until then the community does need some guidance.


> My own view is that we should leave this work to a Working Group that is specifically chartered to deal with RDF serializations. My guess is that there's not a lot of interest in the RDFWA WG to do this work, and it may better be done in the RDF WG, which is also doing Turtle/TriG and may also take on JSON-LD at some point.

Gregg, this is one of the (very) rare cases when we may disagree...:-( see my other mail

Cheers

Ivan



> 
> Gregg
> 
>> As for the the wiki, that should not be a problem.
>> 
>> And... Thanks. I could write long lines of thanks but I do not think it is necessary. Just a huge thanks to you, and we may set the rest when we meet personally somewhere...
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 21, 2011, at 10:08 , Jeni Tennison wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> We are now reaching the end of the period of the HTML Data TF. I want to thank you all for your contributions, and to ask for opinions on whether there are any recommendations we should pass on to the W3C/TAG/HTMLWG/RDFaWG.
>>> 
>>> Things I can think of are:
>>> 
>>> * the W3C should find a WG willing to see the microdata/RDF mapping spec through to Recommendation
>>> * the W3C should continue to support the HTML Data Wiki to capture ongoing developments in the area
>>> 
>>> Are there any other actions that you think we should be recommending?
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Jeni
>>> -- 
>>> Jeni Tennison
>>> http://www.jenitennison.com
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 08:02:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 December 2011 08:02:50 GMT