W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: [editorial] RDFa Lite 1.1 needs to say what RDF and RDFa are

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 00:09:18 -0400
Message-ID: <4FA204EE.70000@digitalbazaar.com>
To: liam@w3.org
CC: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Hi Liam,

Thanks for taking the time to review the RDFa Lite document and for
providing your input, more below...

On 04/30/2012 07:26 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> Please at least expand the acronyms.


> The Abstract says just, [[ RDFa Lite is a minimal subset of RDFa
> consisting of a few attributes that may be applied to most simple to
>  moderate structured data markup tasks. While it is not a complete
> solution for advanced markup tasks, it does work for most day-to-day
>  needs and can be grasped by most Web authors with minimal effort.
> ]]
> but I would not think of RDFa as a replacement for stuctured data in
>  the SQL/relational algebra sense at all, nor as a replacement for
> HTML or XML, despite the mention of (insult of?) Web authors...

Hmm, we don't mean "structured data" in the way you interpreted it, but
I can see how you came to the conclusion that you did. We do use the
term "structured data" throughout the RDFa document family and are
fairly consistent in the way that we use it. See the RDFa Primer and
search for "structured data":


It's a bit late to move away from the way we've been using it. When we
use it, we don't mean SQL, or as a replacement for HTML or XML - we mean
it in the more general sense - data that a machine can interpret in some
sort of deterministic way.

That said, I changed the abstract to not use the terminology and to be
more specific. I also, changed the abstract to avoid the possibility of
insulting Web authors. The new text reads:

RDFa Lite is a minimal subset of RDFa, the Resource Description
Framework in attributes, consisting of a few attributes that may be used
to express machine-readable data in Web documents like HTML and XML.
While it is not a complete solution for advanced data markup tasks, it
does work for most day-to-day needs and can be learned by most Web
authors in a day.

> I'm surprised also there are no bibliographic references to RDF in
> this document. I think it would be useful to point to the RDF Primer
>  at least.

Exposing document authors to the RDF data model that early in the
document was avoided on purpose. Over the years, we have found that we
needed a very simple, straight-to-the-point document to introduce Web
authors to RDFa. Even the RDFa Primer was seen as a bit too heavyweight.
The feedback we've gotten on RDFa Lite has been very positive about its
brevity and the fact that the document feels like it stands on it's own
fairly well.

We also state this in the document:

If you would like to learn more about what is possible with RDFa Lite,
including an introduction to the data model, please read the section on
RDFa Lite in the RDFa Primer [RDFA-PRIMER].

The RDFA-PRIMER points people to the RDF-PRIMER, and that's the way we
want it. Trying to go from the RDF-PRIMER to RDF-CONCEPTS to RDFA-CORE
to RDFA-LITE is far too time consuming for Web authors looking for a
quick summary of what they can do with RDFa Lite. In many cases, they
don't care about the data model, they just want to see some markup to
get a feel for the language.

I have made 3 of the 4 changes you requested. We will have an official
response back to you after the telecon tomorrow. If you are happy with
these changes, please respond stating that as soon as you can. If you
don't like the changes, please be specific about why you are not happy
with them.


-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarm Website for Developers Launched
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 04:09:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:56 UTC