W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > January 2013

Content in RDF status

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 13:39:32 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtnRov4AO3okgmUSxsxhoWuYmzyfPo6QAhe9--1RmnXweg@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
> 7. The specification re-uses the cnt and trig namespaces. But these are not stable proposals, I fear.
> Is anyone still working on the CNT working draft? What will be the status of TriG after the RDF Working Group publishes new material for Named Graphs?

I emailed the Shadi Abou-Zahra from the Evaluation and Repair Tools
Working Group (ERT WG) [2] , who conforms that the Content in RDF [3]
is a stable proposal with only a few minor outstanding issues, but is
not currently on the REC track as they are focusing on doing this for
their main specification EARL [1]. They welcome any comments on the
specifications.

I've let him know that we would consider it useful to have
Content-in-RDF on the REC track as well. Their WG has also developed
the HTTP in RDF working draft [1] which I think could be useful for us
to specify HTTP accept headers etc slightly structured, rather than
the current opaque rdf:value blurb in oa:HttpRequestState.

For reference, you may find extracts from our email exchange below.


[0] http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/HTTP-in-RDF10/
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/Content-in-RDF10/


On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
> (..)
> Content-in-RDF is mostly up-to-date, we only received a few comments most of
> which are resolved and that can be addressed quite quickly:
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/Content/issues>
> (..)

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> (..)
> In our view it would be very desirable to have ContentInRDF on the REC
> track, as it is a very useful vocabulary in many contexts, independent of
> the EARL work, which is a bit more orthogonal to our annotations work.
> (..)

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> Thanks for the update.
> No, it was just a general concern from some of our members in referring to a
> working draft that at first glance could seem abandoned. Content in RDF fits
> our needs quite nicely to allow inline annotation bodies, and we attach also
> dc:format to describe mime type, and type it using DCMI typed to in a more
> abstract way know if it is text, image, etc.
> (..)


On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
> I can see your concern, we have been kind of stuck with the test suites
> development that is blocking progress of the entire EARL suite. But I
> confirm that this is not abandoned work and that, according to the list of
> issues I previously sent you, Content-in-RDF seems fairly stable.
>
> Aside, there were comments requesting Content-in-RDF and other support notes
> for EARL to become REC-track documents. This would make them more stable but
> would need much more effort for documenting test suites and implementations
> to finalize. The current group decision is not to make that move, so we
> could consider finalizing these support notes as only the EARL 1.0 Schema
> document itself is on REC-track. Thoughts on this?

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> Thanks for your reply.
> In our view it would be very desirable to have ContentInRDF on the REC
> track, as it is a very useful vocabulary in many contexts, independent of
> the EARL work, which is a bit more orthogonal to our annotations work.
>
> We are probably also interested in the HTTP in RDF vocabulary as we annotate
> specific resources with Accept headers, etc, but don't want to go to
> verbose, perhaps limit ourselves to http:fieldName and http:fieldValue.


On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
> (..)
> As said, ERT WG took a provisional step not to take these documents to
> REC-track as they are really only supporting documents ("extensions") for
> the core EARL vocabulary. This is primarily due to the fact that currently
> not very many web accessibility evaluation tools, which is our main focus of
> work, support the extensions and we would have even more difficulty finding
> and documenting test suites and implementations.
>
> Having said that, over time we have been seeing increased uptake of these
> vocabulary extensions outside our direct area of work. If there is
> sufficient use, especially readily available test suites and tool
> implementations, then it may change the current position of ERT WG.
>
> This is obviously my perspective that would need ERT WG discussion.
> (..)
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2013 13:40:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 January 2013 13:40:20 GMT