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

Re: DRAFT2: RDF Web Applications WG Position on RDFa/Microdata Task Force

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:28:27 -0400
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2DE70A3C-984F-40BA-A0EF-2F5828290567@kellogg-assoc.com>
On Jul 7, 2011, at 9:57 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:

> Please review and send explicit change suggestions before midnight on
> Friday. If we need to revise, we will do so by Sunday (midnight). The
> final version will go out to the TAG on this coming Sunday.
> Gregg, Ted, Niklas: Your suggested addition is under 'Scope of
> structured data in HTML not clearly defined'.
> Niklas: 2nd paragraph of 'Consensus on "No Change"' added based on your
> feedback.
> Steven: 3rd paragraph of 'Slow creation of Task Force' added based on
> your feedback.
> This is an e-mail response from the RDF Web Applications Working Group
> to the Technical Architecture Group at the W3C regarding a recent
> concern[1] that was brought to our attention.
> We have already submitted a list of people[2] that we believe should be
> a part of the RDFa/Microdata Task Force. Additionally, we have had a
> discussion[3] in the group about the intended purpose and goals of the
> Task Force.
> In general, the group believes that a unified approach to structured
> data on the Web will reduce confusion in the marketplace and thus
> accelerate the growth of Linked Data and the Semantic Web. The group
> also thinks that the effort will be fruitless without broad
> participation and implementation of the Task Force's findings.
> The rest of this e-mail covers the concerns that the RDF Web
> Applications Working Group has regarding the new Task Force and attempts
> to provide guidance for addressing each concern.
> CONCERN: Multiple specifications for the same task
> During the TAG discussion, Larry Masinter produced a question that is at
> the heart of the issue. "Does anyone want there to be more than one
> structured data syntax published by W3C that accomplishes the same task?"
> In hindsight, it was a mistake for the HTML WG to allow the publication
> of two specifications that accomplish effectively the same task (from
> the viewpoint of the public). It is natural that nobody wanted to block
> the work of others - but since that hard decision was not made, and
> since some very large companies are attempting to make that decision for
> their customers, it is creating a great deal of confusion in the
> marketplace.
> It is advised that the question that Larry asked is required to be
> answered by the Task Force.
> CONCERN: Scope of structured data in HTML not clearly defined
> What are the goals of the structured data in HTML work? Is it to support
> the RDF data model? What is the range of data allowed (numbers,
> measurements, text, markup, IRIs)? Support some other Microdata-like
> data model? Support all of the use cases identified? Only support use
> cases that are "mainstream" for Web developers? Provide a browser API
> and unified view of structured data on the web? How much complexity
> should be exposed to a beginner of structured data? If there is to be a
> unified path forward for structured data on the Web, it is important to
> understand which use cases we're supporting and which ones we're leaving
> behind.
> It is advised that the Task Force identify a clear set of goals and use
> cases that are to be supported by the structured data in HTML work. The
> questions above are provided as suggested discussion points.

My point on the range of metadata markup was not about specific data formats, but on the requirements of the type of metadata generated. I.e., it should generate metadata that is consistent with the goals of RDF. I'd strike the sentence "What is the range of data allowed (numbers, measurements, text, markup, IRIs)?", unless other's feel that this is an important issue to have addressed as well.

> CONCERN: Consensus on "No Change"
> There is a concern that the group will be provided with very difficult
> decisions and instead of wanting to make a hard decision, they will
> resolve to not change anything. This will be viewed as a failure of the
> group.
> This issue is an opportunity for the W3C to demonstrate that they are
> capable of finding consensus and driving change among a broad constituency.
> It is advised that a "no change" result should not be an option for the
> Task Force.
> CONCERN: Key implementers will choose to not be involved.
> It is vital that companies that have deployed, or intend to deploy,
> structured data are active participants in the Task Force. This includes
> having the right set of people there as well as ensuring that they are
> committed to the work of the group. The XForms/WebForms and XML/HTML
> Task Forces largely failed in their mandate due to inactivity by major
> participants.
> It is advised that personnel from relevant companies are involved and
> that those personnel have decision making power to enact change in their
> organizations related to the Task Force findings.
> CONCERN: Agreement and then non-action
> It could be that there is agreement among the Task Force participants to
> do something, but there is no follow-through. Solid commitments should
> be made and the Task Force should follow-up to report on progress
> regarding those commitments. Perhaps the HyperText Coordination Group
> should play a part in this work.
> It is advised that the Task Force gather commitments to enact change at
> the end of the discussion phase and then follow-up and report on
> progress regarding the commitments.
> CONCERN: Slow creation of Task Force
> The HTML WG expects Last Call to end in early August for the HTML+RDFa
> and HTML+Microdata specs. Similarly, the RDF Web Apps WG was one week
> away from entering Candidate Recommendation with RDFa 1.1. It is
> questionable whether or not the Task Force will be able to be formed in
> the near future. The announcement of this Task Force has effectively
> placed a hold on work in both Working Groups. There is concern that work
> that is done over the next 3 (or more) months will be invalidated by the
> Task Force or by a formal objection by the TAG.
> The note by the TAG is affecting both Working Group time lines. It is
> imperative that the Task Force is put together quickly and performs its
> work in an expedient manner, or is dissolved and another path forward is
> chosen.
> It is vital that the TAG steps forward and takes responsibility for the
> efficient creation and management of this Task Force. That is, it seems
> that neither the RDF Web Apps WG nor the HTML WG thinks it is their job
> to create or manage this Task Force. Since the original note came from
> the TAG, the ball is in your court.
> It is advised that the creation of the Task Force is made to be a
> priority of the TAG and the Director.
> CONCERN: TAG Note is not actionable
> There is concern in the HTML WG and the RDF Web Apps WG that the note
> provided by the TAG is not actionable[4] without further information
> from the TAG (formal objection or bug reports) or Task Force (findings
> turned into bug reports). The result is that the Working Groups must
> either ignore the TAG note until the Task Force has completed their
> work, or halt their work until the Task Force has completed their work.
> It is advised that the TAG submit a formal objection or that the TAG
> submits a series of bugs for both HTML+RDFa and HTML+Microdata in
> addition to RDFa Core 1.1 in the RDF Web Apps WG.
> -- manu
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Jun/0058.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jul/0011.html
> [3]
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-06-30#Official_Position_on_WWW__2d_TAG_issue
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/30-html-wg-minutes.html#item09
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: PaySwarm Developer Tools and Demo Released
> http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/05/05/payswarm-sandbox/
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 17:29:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:52 UTC