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

Re: Telecon Agenda - Thursday 22 October 2009, 1500 UTC

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:46:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4AE037EE.2050602@w3.org>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Mark,

I do not really disagree with anything you say... my remark simply meant
to say that we should have a clear plan in terms of process before we
dive into the details. Maybe you guys have and I just do not have it
(the 'new kid on the block effect').

You say: "As to where we should do this; I think we should do it in
RDFa+HTML". Do you mean that, eventually, this group should turn into a
task force of the HTML5 group? There were vague plans on chartering a
IG? WG?

In my view we should have a clear plan on these issues before getting
into the details. That is all I meant to say...

Ivan

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
> 
> It's not about 'enjoying' technical discussions over process-related
> ones. If that were the case we wouldn't have any specifications. :)
> 
> But I think we need to consider whether RDFa in HTML has to be the
> same as RDFa in XHTML, for the reasons I'll explain.
> 
> It may not have been obvious, but my list of topics prioritises the
> main objections to RDFa from the proponents of Microdata.
> 
> Some background:
> 
> In my view, Microdata is a political proposal, cobbled together over a
> weekend, for reasons best known to the author. (I have my own
> theories, but that's not important.)
> 
> However, what if instead of using his editor powers to add whatever he
> liked to HTML5, Hixie had proposed some changes to RDFa.
> 
> For example, in Microdata, you have to mark each item with @item. Even
> if there is no 'type' for the item, you still need the attribute. Some
> people might like that, and you could easily do the same with
> @typeof="" in RDFa.
> 
> Except I looked at RDFa and discovered that @typeof="" doesn't
> actually produce a bnode, when it should.
> 
> Hence putting that errata at the top of the list.
> 
> Additionally, in Microdata you can express relationships using full
> URIs; what if Hixie had proposed to this group that we support that? I
> for one would have agreed with him. I know Steven would too, since he
> has mentioned the consistency of URIs and CURIEs in all attributes, a
> few times in the past, long before Microdata was proposed.
> 
> So I suggest that although Hixie hasn't actually proposed it, we don't
> do anyone any favours if we pretend that it's not important.
> 
> I won't go through all of my list, because I just wanted to explain
> why these two were at the top, when in the past we've been
> prioritising things like @profile; it's because I believe we are
> sophisticated enough in our approach to embrace other people's
> proposals...even if they haven't made them. :)
> 
> As to where we should do this; I think we should do it in RDFa+HTML.
> We should put some effort into a backwards-compatible solution for
> 'URIs everywhere', and so what if RDFa in HTML 'leapfrogs' RDFa in
> XHTML?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
> --
> Mark Birbeck, webBackplane
> 
> mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com
> 
> http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck
> 
> webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
> 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
> London, EC2A 4RR)
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> I am sorry to act as a new kid on the block. I am one, after all, as far
>> as this group is concerned:-)
>>
>> I would like to have a clear agreement of what _this_ group wants to
>> achieve. If we are talking about errata, that is one thing. But some of
>> the issues in this list heading for an updated recommendation, some sort
>> of an RDFa 1.1, because it definitely adds functionality. Although each
>> of us prefers to have discussions on the technical contents, we have to
>> have a clear decision on what can be realistically achieved in the
>> remaining two months that this group is chartered for, and what are the
>> possibilities and plans for beyond that.
>>
>> And to be more blunt: I do not believe it is realistic to plan for an
>> RDFa1.1 for this WG. As I said on the RDFa API thread, with the
>> publication path to follow, with a CR, ie, implementation requirements,
>> etc, the remaining 2 months is simply not enough.
>>
>> Again, much I would prefer to dive into the technical discussions, well,
>> we have to talk about formalities...
>>
>> Sorry:-)
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>>> Hi Manu,
>>>
>>> I was going to flag up some of the work items that I think we need to
>>> be keeping an eye on, and also suggest an order of priority.
>>>
>>> The first is that @typeof="" should generate a bnode. I think we
>>> discussed this, and even agreed an errata, but I can't find the
>>> reference, so I thought I'd better raise it again.
>>>
>>> Second is the use of 'URIs anywhere'; I think this is important for
>>> the consistency of RDFa, and would also allow anyone who doesn't like
>>> using CURIEs, or who wants to publish 'self-contained' markup snippets
>>> that don't have prefix mappings, to do so.
>>>
>>> After that, I think the discussion about a technique for bundling
>>> tokens is next. That has been called the @profile discussion, but of
>>> course that might not be the way to do it. But whatever we decide on,
>>> I think this is important work for some of the people that are
>>> starting to define vocabularies for authors to use, such as Yahoo!,
>>> Google, the Good Relations vocabulary, and so on.
>>>
>>> And then finally, the DOM API; I do think we need to do this, but I
>>> think it comes lower down the list than these other things.
>>>
>>> I'm proposing this list, so that each week, as we have our calls, if
>>> there is any time left for features and design, we can make sure that
>>> we allocate the discussion in order of agreed priority. So this is my
>>> list -- does anyone else have such a list? And does anyone want to
>>> disagree with the suggested order?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Birbeck, webBackplane
>>>
>>> mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com
>>>
>>> http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck
>>>
>>> webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
>>> 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
>>> London, EC2A 4RR)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We have a telecon tomorrow, the agenda is below. Please review and
>>>> add any items that you feel need to be discussed.
>>>>
>>>> ==========
>>>> Thursday, October 22nd, 2009
>>>> 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge
>>>> tel:+1.617.761.6200 conference code RDFA
>>>> irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa
>>>> Duration: 60 minutes
>>>> Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim
>>>> ==========
>>>>
>>>> Agenda:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Action Items
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
>>>>
>>>> 2) Discuss and approve Shane's errata text
>>>>   * Reserved word values and case-sensitivity[1]
>>>>   * Updated errata on XMLLiteral values and canonical XML
>>>>
>>>> 3) 9 new Unreviewed XHTML Test Cases
>>>>   * http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
>>>>   * TCs: 134, 140, 142, 147, 154
>>>>
>>>> -- manu
>>>>
>>>> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0010.html
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
>>>> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>>> blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture
>>>> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/08/30/equitable-culture/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>>
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> 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
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:46:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:46:34 GMT