W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > May 2005

Re: status of RDF/A

From: Daniel Weitzner <djweitzner@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 20:10:31 -0400
Message-Id: <6d73a1c4554824affcec7c3ec2c3944b@w3.org>
Cc: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
To: "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>


Thanks for the reply but we need a bit more clarity on this subject in 
order to continue a productive interaction between the SemWeb Best 
Practices WG (RDF-in-xHTML-TF) and the HTML WG. Simply put, the Task 
Force needs to have some what of understanding the HTML WG's plans for 
including or not including RDF/A in the upcoming Last Call draft. If 
you're saying that resolution from two years ago cited below indicates 
a clear intent to include RDF/A as proposed by the Task Froce in the 
Last Call draft, then I'd appreciate you making that more clear. (My 
guess is some update would be required as I don't really think this 
resolution can indicate acceptance of a proposal that didn't even exist 
that the time it was taken.) If, on the other hand, the WG either 
hasn't decided about RDF/A or is inclined to exclude it, then it would 
be good for that to be clear, too.

I do appreciate the work that you and Mark Birbeck have been doing on 
the task force, but we're still missing, afaik, a clear yes/no, 
hate-it/love-it, need more info indication from the HTML WG.

I think that much of the source of confusion here is the rather long 
gap in publication of public working drafts from the HTML WG.  If we 
could all see drafts of the WG's work and current state of consensus, 
then the RDF-in-xHTML-TF would be able to understand the current state 
of mind w.r.t this issue. As it is, we're going on tea leaves, old 
resolutions, etc. This makes collaboration difficult.



On May 20, 2005, at 11:32 AM, Steven Pemberton wrote:

> On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:34:46 +0200, Daniel Weitzner 
> <djweitzner@w3.org> wrote:
>> Hi Steven,
>> I'm glad we had a chance to talk last week at WWW2005 re: the status 
>> of RDF/A. I certainly appreciate all of the work you've been doing on 
>> the RDF-in-xHTML Task Force and am especially glad to hear that the 
>> HTML WG will be including this work in the Last Call draft.
>> I wonder if this decision is documented somewhere in the HTML WG's 
>> issues list or drafts? WIth a bit of poking around I was unable to 
>> find it. While I'm certainly happy to take your word for it, I'm 
>> pretty sure that the RDF community would be more secure to see this 
>> decision documented somewhere before Last Call.
> Hi Danny,
> The initial resolution to take the RDF/A approach was here:
> 	http://www.w3.org/2003/11/04-html-irc#T16-12-41
> 	RESOLUTION: import all RDF properties as attributes.
> You'll see some recognisable snippets of <meta> and <link> in the 
> discussion leading up to that resolution.
> Later, when writing it up, we realised it didn't quite work as we had 
> discussed during that meeting, and that led to the RDF/A approach, 
> which has the same intended effect, but with different, though clearly 
> related, attributes.
> Hope this helps.
> Best wishes,
> Steven
Daniel J. Weitzner                                          
+1.617.253.8036 (MIT)
World Wide Web Consortium                       +1.202.364.4750 (DC)
Technology & Society Domain Leader      <djweitzner@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2005 00:10:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:19 UTC