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

Re: A proposal for establishing an RDFa IG

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:01:01 -0400
Message-ID: <4A5684BD.2080407@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> I believe we need to work together.  If you are not willing to do that
> -- and furthermore, if "That's the point of the RDFa IG" --  then lets
> make this interesting.  I, Sam Ruby, do hereby publicly oppose the
> formation of such an IG.

You're opposing a concept that not one of us have put forward... the
purpose of the RDFa IG is so that we /can/ work together... not so we
can go off into our own little world and give people "advice".

The RDFa IG would have a direct hand in editing each language/WG using
RDFa - that is, if the WG wishes to work with us. Personally, I was in
agreement with a number of the constraints that you and Doug placed on
the RDFa IG.

> Talking specifically about a "RDFa in HTML" draft, I don't see how 
> anybody can take a position that microdata is in scope for the HTML WG 
> and RDFa in HTML is not.  As such, if there is interest in working on 
> such a document, then I will do my part to enable those who wish to do 
> so have direct access to CVS, etc.

Sure, RDFa in HTML is certainly in the HTML WG's scope... RDFa in SVG is
certainly /not/ in the HTML WG's scope. I don't think it makes much
sense to set up an RDFa group in the HTML WG and another one in the SVG
WG, and another one for ODF... unless I'm missing your point. It
stresses resources for RDFa that are spread too thin already.

Doug Schepers wrote:
> If you think it needs to happen in an IG, I would support that and urge 
> others to as well, with the proviso that you will need to work directly 
> with implementers to make sure all your bases are covered and the end 
> result is suitable.

Again, I think this is a perfectly valid provision - we want to see RDFa
adopted as widely as possible, so it makes sense to be involved with the
process, in each WG adopting RDFa, from the point where we are needed to
the point where it is deployed, through the process where implementation
experience can feed the next revision.

> If that is the intent instead, then I fully support that work.  If there 
> is enough overlap between the people doing the work for HTML and those 
> doing the work for SVG that it makes sense to formally recognize this as 
> an IG so that a separate mailing list can be set up for coordination, 
> then I think that's a dandy idea.

I'm fairly certain that that was the general concept - but no need for a
separate mailing list. This mailing list would just continue (or be
renamed, or whatever else needs to happen to cause the least amount of
destabilization to the RDFa community).

> I believe that the W3C has for too long
> operated in a dysfunctional manner by NOT addressing issues head on, and
> instead facilitating confusion[1] by creating overlapping groups with
> unclear boundaries and missions, and in this case with the apparent
> expressed purpose of avoiding addressing the underlying issue.

I think placing the RDFa work under the HTML WG would create several
unclear boundaries and confuse the mission of RDFa, especially when we
want to develop some documents for SVG. What underlying issue do you
think we're not addressing?

> I believe that Mike and I have expressed the way we would like to see
> things progress:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0132.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0017.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0018.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0019.html

Just because nothing has happened in the past two weeks since these
announcements were made, don't assume that nothing is going to continue
to happen. We're all very busy and it takes time to ramp these things
up. I will be looking at inserting text specific to RDFa into the HTML5
spec this weekend (and was planning on doing so before seeing your e-mail).

> Ben - we've met, and Manu we appear to be geographically close enough
> that we could easily meet for lunch half way someplace if that was of
> interest. 

Let's set up a time to meet in person, then. Early-to-mid August is the
earliest time on my calendar. We'll coordinate offline.

> I hope that you both appreciate that I have no ill will
> towards RDFa.  To the contrary, I would like to see this work continue
> and succeed.  Just not this way.

I think you're misunderstanding what we're attempting to express. I
don't know what you mean by "Just not this way", but I have a feeling
that there is a good bit of mis-communication going on right now. I
don't see much of a difference between what we were planning on doing
and what you've outlined in the referenced e-mails above.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/
Received on Friday, 10 July 2009 00:01:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 10 July 2009 00:01:42 GMT