W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January to March 2004

customer feedback, please

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:56:05 -0600
To: RDF in XHTML task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1079628965.8631.241.camel@dirk>

I'd like to check in with anybody who feels like a customer,
especially the intersection of this task force with the
Semantic Web Best Practices WG.

Who are the customers? Who feels like their work is
blocked on this problem? I have heard

	Nick Gibbins: AKT has had to solve this problem
	DanBri for Dublin Core (with daveb, EricM)
	DanBri for FOAF
	Brian McBride feels like a customer
	Ben Adida for Creative Commons

So... to those customers... are we done?
I think the proposals in play are:

  RDF/XHTML, for XHTML 2
  http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/02/xhtml-rdf.html

  GRDDL, a profile for XHTML (all dialects)
  http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view

The proposals are complementary; you might find either
or both suit your needs...

You're welcome to comment in any way that suits you; here
are some suggested comments; please check all that apply:

[ ] we tried RDF/XHTML
	(give a pointer, if your trials are public, please)
  [ ] and we find it wholly satisfactory
[ ] we need RDF/XHTML published as a W3C Working Group Note
  [ ] before we can justify the risk/expense of trying it
[ ] We need RDF/XHTML published as (part of) a W3C Recommendation
  [ ] before we can justify the risk/expense of trying it
[ ] we need an XSL mapping from RDF/XHTML to RDF/XML
  [ ] before we can try it
[ ] we need better rationale/motivation for RDF/XHTML
[ ] we need better documentation for RDF/XHTML of the form ____
[ ] we need better tools for RDF/XHTML of the form ___

[ ] we tried GRDDL
  [ ] and we find it wholly satisfactory as is
[ ] we tried one or more of the GRDDL demo services
	http://www.w3.org/2003/11/rdf-in-xhtml-demo
	http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/grddl-xml-demo
[ ] we need GRDDL published as a W3C Working Group Note
  [ ] before we can justify the risk/expense of trying it
[ ] We need GRDDL published as (part of) a W3C Recommendation
  [ ] before we can justify the risk/expense of trying it
[ ] We tried the GRDDL transformation you provided for our dialect
	http://www.w3.org/2000/06/dc-extract/dc-extract.xsl
	http://www.w3.org/2003/12/rdf-in-xhtml-xslts/grokCC.xsl
	etc.
[ ] We intend to publish a GRDDL transformation for our dialect
	(e.g. ideally, Dublin Core folks might take on publication and
	maintenance of
	http://www.w3.org/2000/06/dc-extract/dc-extract.xsl
	or Creative Commons might take on maintenance of
	http://www.w3.org/2003/12/rdf-in-xhtml-xslts/grokCC.xsl)
[ ] We need help building an XSL transformation for the XHTML
	dialect we use
[ ] We don't think the generalization to XML is worthwhile;
	please take out section "3. The GRDDL attribute in XML"
[ ] We need the "XML Namespaces and embedded RDF" section
	finished and tested
[ ] we need better rationale/motivation for GRDDL
  [ ] We still haven't seen good reasons why just sticking
	RDF inside XHTML doesn't work.
[ ] We need better documentation for RDF/XHTML of the form ____
[ ] We need better tools for RDF/XHTML of the form ___

[ ] We rely on HTML that isn't XML, so neither of these
	proposals works for us
[ ] We did something completely different; it works
	for us, and we wonder if it would work for others: ___
[ ] GRDDL is too open-ended for us. We want W3C to pick
	a more constrained syntax and say "do this".
[ ] We're waiting for __group X___ to adopt one of these
	proposals before we try/endorse one of them.
[ ] We're waiting for more momentum to build before we step in.
[ ] Two proposals is one too many. The existince
   of GRDDL makes RDF/XHTML insufficiently endorsed.
[ ] Two proposals is one too many. The existince
   of RDF/XHTML makes GRDDL insufficiently endorsed.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 11:56:02 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Thursday, 18 March 2004 11:56:04 EST