RE: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version

I think section 2 is a very good addition, and by large it addresses nicely my original concern on a quick overview of the language capability right up front within the Primer. 

Regarding the 'collision' issue, I tend to agree with the responses by Mark Birbeck [1] and Pat Hayes [2]. 

I strongly believe what is really important is for the tools to retrieve *unambiguously* what the author of the metadata intended the tools to retrieve.

[Mark]> "it is supposed to be up to the user agent to make use of the fragment identifier.)"

[Pat]> "What matters is only that a community of agents all agree to use the same kind of coercion strategy when it is required, which allows strings to be used to refer to agents; and to the extent they do, then they thereby become genuinely referring names."

Along this line however, I've noticed within the new Section 2 in [3] possibly another ambiguity which is related to URI dereferencing, perhaps Alistair can chime in as well (as I am no expert in the dereferencing issue): 

How does one (a tool or human) decides whether the href="..." is physically dereferenceable and the location indeed contains more metadata about it? 

There must be situations where the href="..." is only logical and is not deferenceable, or in another situations where the author really intend to just assert that resource reference as a piece of metadata and has no intension for anyone to dereference?

For example,

A. Don't want to dereference for metadata: 
   foaf:mbox     = "mailto:jo.lambda@example.org"

B. Those to dereference for more metadata (e.g in the Department members page) to build up a contact list:
   <a rel="foaf:member" href="http://jo-lamda.blogspot.com/">Jo Lamda</a>

C. Those to dereference but there is going to be nothing there so we need to add metadata locally. In this case it seems like the approach is to use additional elements with about="..." to specify.

>From the use case in section 2, it would seem the tools automatically updating contact details would need to at least differentiate situations A and B, because the language does not currently distinguish them. 

If the default behaviour is A, then the tool will get some uneven/incomplete metadata by the Department members page example since all 3 situations are contained in the document. 

If the default behaviour is B, then there exists not just problems with A, but a web crawling problem in that: when do you stop dereferencing and retrieving only just those metadata relevant to your tool?

I am fine with going forward to WD, base on this version with updates from all the review comments.

Cheers,

Gary

p.s. In addition, the last example of Section 2 (a departmental member without a homepage) is intriging: 

<li id="andrew" about="#andrew">
  <link rel="rdf:type" href="[foaf:member]" />
  <span property="foaf:firstname">Andrew</span>
  <span property="foaf:surname">Smith</span> can be contacted on
  <span property="foaf:phone">+1 777 888 9998</span>
</li>

I think the link element is incorrect as it states #andrew rdf:type foaf:member, which is an rdf:Property?


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0137.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0139.html


________________________________________
From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:49 PM
To: Ben Adida; SWBPD list
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml task force
Subject: RE: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version


I hate to say this, but I think the URI identity issues that Alistair
raised in email[3] after yesterday's teleconference are important enough
to delay publication until they are either fixed or visibly marked as
problems.  The WebArch document is clear that URI collisions[4] are A
Bad Thing.  It would seem wrong to endorse such collisions, even
implicitly.

David Booth

[3] Identity issues raised by Alistair:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0113.html
[4] TAG's Web Architecture:
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ben Adida
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:03 PM
> To: SWBPD list
> Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml task force
> Subject: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I made a mistake in the version of the RDF/A Primer that I presented 
> at the telecon yesterday. I have just finished uploading the right 
> version, which you can find here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-01-24-rdfa-primer
>
> With the WG and specifically the reviewers' approval (DBooth,
> GaryNg, 
> and also "unofficial" reviewers), I am hoping that we can rapidly 
> agree that this latest version should be the one that becomes our 
> first published WD.
>
> The only difference in content is that the new version has an extra 
> section (section #2), and the old sections 2 and 3 are merged into 
> the new section 3 for purely organizational purposes (no text
> is lost 
> or added in those sections, just reorganized.) The point of the new 
> section 2 is to add an even simpler introductory example. We believe 
> this additional section is in line with the comments we
> received from 
> reviewers, both official and earlier, unofficial reviews. In
> fact, we 
> began writing it in part to respond to some of these early
> comments 2 
> weeks ago.
>
> The already-approved version is still at the old URL for
> comparison:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-01-15-rdfa-primer
>
> I want to stress that this is entirely *my* mistake: the TF had 
> agreed [1,2] that this second version would be presented to the WG 
> yesterday, and I simply forgot. Publishing these additional examples 
> now is quite important for getting the word out about RDF/A and 
> making it competitive against other metadata inclusion proposals, 
> outside of W3C, that are gaining traction.
>
> Apologies for my mistake. I hope you'll see that these edits do not 
> constitute a substantive change to the document, rather they help 
> make the same points more appealing to and understandable by
> a larger 
> audience.
>
> -Ben Adida
> ben@mit.edu
>
> [1] Discussion during last segment of January 10th TF
> telecon: http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-swbp-minutes
>
> [2] Discussion, at beginning, of Mark's new examples during January 
> 17th TF telecon:
> http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-swbp-minutes
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 09:35:29 UTC