W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > October 2011

Re: RDF 1.1 Lite, Issue #1: Need for 'official' W3C blessing

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:32:05 -0400
Message-ID: <4EA32845.9060602@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 10/22/2011 12:47 PM, Guha wrote:
> We discussed the need for this amongst the Schema.org sponsors.

I'd like to see that discussion happen in the public, not in private 
e-mails or phone calls.

It would be good to know exactly who is discussing what and why certain 
requests are being made. The communication coming into the RDFa group 
from Google and Microsoft's Search engineers over the last 4 years on 
these issues has been non-existent. It is difficult for us to know what 
the issues are if they are not clearly explained and documented as 
issues against the specification.

We want to help. We truly do. The RDFa WG has an excellent track record 
of debating and addressing public comments. However, in order for this 
to happen, you must engage the RDFa WG in a more public manner. This 
forum is fine for now, but I hope that /all issues/ will be publicly 
articulated and logged against the RDFa 1.1 specification in time.

I will also note that RDFa 1.1 is scheduled to go into Last Call in 2-3 
weeks. We have zero outstanding technical bugs logged against RDFa. So, 
it's important to know what the deal-breakers are for Google/Microsoft 
so that we may make the necessary changes, if any, before going to REC.

> No matter how authoritative a blogger is, an individuals blog is just a
> personal opinion, based on which we are not willing to declare support.

Yes, the whole personal blog thing was a joke. :) Of course we'll 
publish something through W3C to get the official blessing if that's 
what Google and Microsoft want. The only question at this point, from my 
perspective... is whether it is going to be a W3C Note or a W3C REC.

I've already articulated why doing a W3C REC that contains certain 
changes to the processing rules would break all existing RDFa content. 
So, any changes made would have to make sure that they don't break the 
majority of existing content out there today.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Standardizing Payment Links - Why Online Tipping has Failed
http://manu.sporny.org/2011/payment-links/
Received on Saturday, 22 October 2011 20:32:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:48:56 GMT