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

Re: DRAFT3: RDF Web Applications WG Position on RDFa/Microdata Task Force

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:19:30 -0400
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D6C73011-8B6C-434F-902D-7649BD099D68@kellogg-assoc.com>
+1, looks good to me.

Gregg

On Jul 10, 2011, at 10:33 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: Struck "What is the range of data.." statement.
> 
> Tom: Reworded the last paragraph a bit to make it more clear that
> technical issues/bugs need to be filed.
> 
> DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3
> 
> 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.
> 
> We recommend 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? 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.
> 
> We recommend 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.
> 
> 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 the
> organization is capable of finding consensus and driving positive change
> among a broad constituency.
> 
> We recommend 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.
> 
> We recommend 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.
> 
> We recommend 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 effecting 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 and both Domain Leads step forward and take
> 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.
> 
> We recommend that the creation of the Task Force is made to be a
> priority of the TAG, Domain Leads, 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.
> 
> We recommend that the TAG submit a formal objection containing technical
> issues for both specifications, 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.
> 
> DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3
> 
> -- 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 Sunday, 10 July 2011 23:20:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:17 GMT