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: Sebastian Germesin <sebastian.germesin@dfki.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:23:10 +0200
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8DF7C908-6E7E-40CA-A7DC-C1466FD3A69D@dfki.de>
To: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
+1 from my side too.


Am 11.07.2011 um 12:09 schrieb Thomas Steiner:

> +1 LGTM.
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 01:19, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg- 
> assoc.com> wrote:
>> +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
>>> 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
>>> -- 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/
> -- 
> Thomas Steiner, Research Scientist, Google Inc.
> http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac

M.Sc. Sebastian Germesin	
Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH (DFKI)
Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3
66123 Saarbruecken

Tel.: +49.681.85775.5079
Fax.: +49.681.85775.5021

email:   sebastian.germesin@dfki.de
GPG:     http://www.dfki.de/~germesin/gpg/germesin_dfki.gpgkey
web:     http://www.dfki.de/~germesin
skype:   neogermi1337
twitter: germesin
github:  http://github.com/neogermi

Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 10:23:40 UTC

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