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

Re: Normative vs Informative

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:59:05 -0500
Message-ID: <4ED42049.2050203@openlinksw.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 11/28/11 6:42 PM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
>
> Kingsley wrote:
>
> > HTML with Microdata based structured data islands. An option to sit 
> alongside: XHTML+RDFa and RDF/XML .
>
> Brilliant! progress :)
>
> Okay, so --- first off, drop the philosophical stuff.
>

I haven't expressed a philosophical position about anything. Of course, 
you are 100% entitle to your subjective opinions.

> Most people, and I honestly mean this in the nicest possible way, 
> *don't care*.
>

Again, subjective. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. That 
doesn't make it factual.

> This is a battle which is being played out pretty by you alone.
>

See comment above.

> Use RDF, don't use RDF, it does't matter from a religious perspective: 
> what matters is taking each on its own merit.
>

I would really like to believe that is my point, but somehow it doesn't 
resonate with you in this context. You somehow see my concerns as 
totally contrary to the all important point you've just made in the 
sentence above.

>
> So this is what you need to do if you want to take HTML+Microdata 
> anywhere in WebID land, and I hope you do --- because if not, this has 
> been a colossal waste of all of our time---with apologies if some of 
> them already have been (and if so, then the philosophical debates 
> really WERE unnecessary):
>

Again, please perform a modicum of research before jumping to 
conclusion. At least do that. I does help when you have a rich context 
en route to jumping to conclusions.

>
> 1. Submit an ISSUE along the lines of "Support for HTML+Microdata 
> profiles as part of WebID would be advantageous", so that there can be 
> formal debate (on merit) and vote on it (my take? if we're doing RDFa 
> 1.1, I can't think of a good reason why not, the below notwithstanding)
>
> 2. Spec how a WebID profile graph would look serialised in terms of 
> Microdata
>

Again, as per my comment re. research. You should have seen that I sent 
a Microdata example over the weekend. I didn't just send a Microdata 
example I sent an example two graphs, one in html+microdata form and the 
other in xhtml+rdfa.

>
> 3. 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)
>
> 4. 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.)
>
>
> The key here is that if there's going to be traction, there needs to 
> be ways for consumer to understand profiles published in *either* 
> RDF/XML *or* RDFa (as currently specced) *or* Microdata. You can't 
> just pick one (because somebody else will also decide to pick one, and 
> pretending that all things are equal, two thirds of people won't pick 
> Microdata); consumers have to be able to support all three or the 
> whole thing's a bust. This is not easy: with RDF/XML and RDFa (and 
> Turtle, and RDF/JSON, and JSON-LD, there's already a common manipuable 
> form as a set of RDF triples, so the 'cost' of adding yet another RDF 
> serialisation is entirely in the parser. With something which isn't 
> RDF, you have to go further to make it work --- and this isn't some 
> religious nuance, it's purely a matter of inertia and practicality. 
> Somebody, somewhere, has to do the work to reconcile them if you 
> actually want them reconciled.
>

I have nothing more to add since you clearly believe:

1. I haven't implemented anything
2. I have nothing better to do with my time than curb Henry's dangerous 
tendencies re. making WebID more inclusive and accomodating.

If WebID was about Henry, I would have kissed it goodbye this weekend. 
And certainly after this post. Unfortunately, as I've stated repeatedly, 
it isn't about Henry or I. It's about solving a serious problem by 
leveraging the in-built architecture of the World Wide Web where RDF is 
an option.

I am moving on, you'll come to understand my concerns in due course, 
that I am 100% certain about.

BTW -- can I have some links to WebID compliant stuff you've implemented?

>
> M.
>
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain 
> personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically 
> stated.
> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in 
> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to this. 


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen








Received on Monday, 28 November 2011 23:59:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 November 2011 23:59:43 GMT