W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Tasks in support of HTML Microdata

From: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:07:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD_aa-92tfAcDB9F6twoExzFR4SsXmFHJQpOJuYaCH2xxOQ92w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>
Cc: "public-xg-webid@w3.org" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Fair enough. But this email thread is regarding Microdata per se. So
perhaps Issue 66 should reframe (c) to be something like:

"Spec how an application can process RDF/XML _and_ RDFa _and_
Microdata ON EQUAL FOOTING"

If other properties are included in the spec, and Microdata is to be
included in the spec, then Microdata MUST be able to support those
other properties.

And then we can consider Peter's point as an issue independent of
Microdata per se, and so not part of this particular discussion thread
and not part of Issue 66.

Thanks
-Patrick


On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, I disagree about point (c); but only requesting its scope be reduced.
> Its not the purpose of the SPEC itself to talk about anything OTHER than the
> cert key property and a matching rule for a value set from a cert and a
> value set from a webid profile.
>
> Nothing in this particular universe requires validating agents to be
> processing or understanding, or preparing for, or countencing other
> properties. Other universes (such as the foaf project) can wrap around this
> one, and use foaf cards for such as account mapping, or foaf grouping.
> Similarly, others might use owl:sameAs for synonyms handling in other
> universes. Yet others might wrap a particualr rdf/xml stream in the PGP wot
> vocab, but again that is NOT in our scope. Sopmeone might write sparql
> queries to be executed at a webid-powerd sparql protocol server, even, which
> walks trust graphs and computes a chain of trust anchors. But, those are
> "value adds". We ensure they MIGHT exist but only becuase of we sure a
> common architectural baseline, at the very lowest common demoninator level.
>
> Here on the list all those topics are in discussion scope, so the baseline
> in the spec makes it a solid baseline for all those value adds.
>
> Lets not forget this is not a working group. its JUST an incubator...
>
>
>> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:22:08 -0800
>> From: patrickdlogan@gmail.com
>> To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
>> Subject: Tasks in support of HTML Microdata
>
>>
>> I'd like to begin a new thread on this list for tracking and closing
>> the issue of supporting HTML Microdata. Please put non-specific (i.e.
>> not strictly aimed at resolving this issue) in a separate thread with
>> a different subject line.
>>
>> Let's keep this thread short and to the point.
>>
>> There is an issue on record:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/track/issues/66
>>
>> The next tasks toward completion are the following:
>>
>> a. Spec how a WebID profile graph would look serialised in terms of
>> Microdata
>> b. Spec how an application can process RDF/XML _and_ RDFa _and_
>> Microdata in a uniform fashion for the basic verification (i.e.,
>> public key description)
>> c. Spec how an application can process RDF/XML _and_ RDFa _and_
>> Microdata in a uniform fashion for arbitrary information, such as
>> profile fields (display name, homepage, online accounts, etc.)
>>
>> * Does anyone disagree that these are the next steps in support of
>> HTML Microdata for WebID profiles?
>>
>> * Does anyone have questions about these tasks?
>>
>> * Does anyone intend to take these on?
>>
>> * Is anyone obligated to take these on?
>>
>> * What happens to Issue 66 if no one moves it forward?
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Patrick
>>
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 19:08:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 December 2011 19:08:14 GMT