W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2009

Re: A proposal for establishing an RDFa IG

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:43:55 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20090708112750.016e53a8@127.0.0.1>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
At 10:58 AM 7/8/2009 -0400, Manu Sporny wrote:
>I believe that almost everyone in this community hopes that the work on
>RDFa can be done inside of the W3C.

And I'm  part of that community :)

...
>I have yet to speak with the Task Force about this proposal, but think
>that it fits with the consensus at the moment. Here is what you, Chris
>Wilson, Mike Smith, Doug Schepers, Dan Connolly, Philippe, TimBL (and
>the rest of W3C) can do:
>
>*Publicly* support an RDFa Interest Group (IG) that operates
>/independently/ of SVGWG, HTMLWG, and WHATWG. The RDFa IG should advise
>each group on the implementation of RDFa in each language, perhaps even
>writing (or helping to write) the draft language to be
>included/referenced in each spec.

That makes a lot of sense to me.  There are multiple roles a W3C
Interest Group can play.  Advising on the deployment, both on the
Web and in other "host" languages, is well within charter.  An
IG can certainly be given a deliverable to offer proposals for
RDFa in other host languages and other Groups can be given
a chartered dependency to coordinate with an IG.  Ultimately
the W3C Recommendation document must still come from a
Working Group.  Such a document could draw freely from
Interest Group Notes, however.

And I particularly think it's useful to have a group who fills the
role of coordinator as different host languages present partially
overlapping needs for alterations as RDFa is adapted to each
host language.  The Semantic Web community is in the best
position to know which features are crucial to the architecture
and which features are design choices that could be implemented
in other ways for other host languages with little impact on
the utility of RDFa.

...
>To clarify my personal intentions, I will continue to push on WHATWG for
>HTML5+RDFa. I started doing it because there was hope in convincing
>WHATWG to adopt RDFa in a slightly modified form. That hope has been all
>but extinguished over the past 7 months.

I'm hoping you will find the strength to carry on a bit longer
so the community can find some reinforcement.

-Ralph
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 15:44:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 8 July 2009 15:44:39 GMT