W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Writeup of yesterday's discussion on RDFa default profiles

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:23:39 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimanMJ1XofqaLR-UdYqkYZN3bU+XSj535Gob0kE@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ivan,

I'd just like to say that I don't believe there really was a
resolution for the issue of updating the profile on the telecon the
other day:

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> [...]
>
> 2. We have one default profile file, valid for all RDFa host languages. Host languages cannot define default profiles.
>
> 3. The default profile may contain term and prefix definitions. There is currently a discussion in the group as for how
> the content of the profile file would evolve. In particular, options on the table are:
>
> 3.a: A default profile is defined by the RDFa WG and is published alongside the RDFa 1.1 specification. The URI of
> that profile is fixed and its content is then frozen. New (future) versions of RDFa may define their own profile but those
> should reside at a different URI-s.
>
> 3.b: A default profile is defined by the RDFa WG and is published alongside the RDFa 1.1 specification. The URI of
> that profile is fixed. The Working Group will also develop a mechanism whereby the default profile can be regularly
> updated by extending it with new prefixes and terms. There should be a clear and documented policy how that should
> happen, and that policy should work beyond the existence of the RDFa Working Group.
>
> I believe there is an agreement on item #1 (we never explicitly discussed this, but I believe what is there is the
> common idea we have on what a default profile is). There is also an agreement on item #2 (we also have a
> Resolution at [1]).

The problem is that as this resolution was being voted on the
discussion changed and a number of problems were raised with the
wording -- and not just by me -- so we started discussing new wording.
We discussed new wording on the phone, but also you can see in in IRC
that new wording was being proposed there. We continued to discuss
this whole idea, and as you know people stayed on the call after the
usual time was finished. But although at no point did we decide on a
replacement proposal, I think the confusion and disagreement over the
wording of the recorded proposal mean it would be wrong to conclude
that the vote was unambiguous. I'd like to suggest that we re-run that
vote.

Regards,

Mark
Received on Sunday, 30 January 2011 13:24:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:08 GMT