W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > January 2007

[RDFa] Re: Comment on Use Case #1: [Re: an update of the use case document]

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:44:52 -0500
Message-ID: <45BF67F4.7070901@adida.net>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>


I think I disagree with you on this point.

Ivan Herman wrote:
> I think that people amy contest the validity of this use case, at least
> the way it is formulated in terms of 'blogging'.

This is actually a very important goal: to have a blogging use case. We
don't want people to think that RDFa is "just for complex scientific
data." It should be usable for simple things, too.

> - the comparison with the access to Atom/RSS is misleading, because an
> Atom/RSS feed usually does *not* include things like foaf:knows or
> anything similar anyway!

That's just extra data that your newsreader can choose to ignore. The
point is that the same source can be both a rendered HTML page and a

> - the text says "if Paul edits one of his blog posts, the corresponding
> structured data is also automatically updated"; well, if I change my
> blog, the corresponding RSS/Atom feeds are also automatically updated.

Okay, but that's your blog tool that has to keep everything in sync on
the backend by re-baking your site, or by dynamically responding to new
queries. This lets you build *much simpler* blog engines. I've added a
short mention of this.

> I think we should not refer to 'blog' here but simply to Paul's home
> page that contains this information. Whether this extra information is
> on Paul's blog is, in this respect, besides the point.

Sure, but then we lose the use case that the bloggers will flock to. I
think we need to keep in mind that bloggers are a huge constituency, and
we need to take their needs into account specifically.

> Alternatively, if we want to keep to a blog, what *could* be said is
> that I can *add* this extra information to my blog which indeed does
> *not* appear through the usual RSS/Atom mechanism. *That* may be a good
> selling point (and some of the use cases below, like use case #4, make
> use of this additional mechanism.).

I'm a bit confused as to why this is bothering you. Having extra data is
not a problem in RDF, right?

> (Note that, unfortunately, that means editing the blog item at the
> source level, because the blog system's wswyg editing offers only a
> limited capacity to do these things. Maybe we could add a reference that
> the blog system becomes RDFa aware and adds this feature to its wswyg
> part, too)

Yes, that's more or less what my latest edit says.

Check it out and let me know if this makes sense.

Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2007 15:44:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:48 UTC