W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > site-comments@w3.org > October 2009

Re: New W3C Web Site Launched

From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:14:51 -0700
Message-ID: <19158.9003.262789.600855@retriever.mtv.corp.google.com>
To: ij@w3.org
Cc: raman@google.com, michael.hausenblas@deri.org, site-comments@w3.org, chairs@w3.org, w3c-ac-forum@w3.org

No, publishing the RDF directly is already an acknowledged
failure in my opinion as far as reaching a wider Web audience is
concerned. The RDFA work was an attempt at remedying this -- its
detractors will tell you readily that it's not suitable
either. But then we digress.

I think the overall concensus is that given the scrapy
"architecture" of the Web today, having  metadata available in
html is more likely to get scraped and used.

Ian Jacobs writes:
 > On 14 Oct 2009, at 2:00 PM, T.V Raman wrote:
 > 
 > >
 > > The reson to put the RDF-level metadata into W3CSite documents is
 > > not for you to use it --- it is for others to build off the
 > > semantics you publish.
 > 
 > If we publish the RDF directly (which we do), does that not accomplish  
 > the same goal?
 > 
 > Here's the RDF:
 >    http://www.w3.org/2002/01/tr-automation/tr.rdf
 >    http://www.w3.org/2000/04/mem-news/public-groups.rdf
 > 
 > There's more for the talks, and so on.
 > 
 > >
 > > Basically I believe this is in fact the true challenge of the
 > > Open Semantic Web ever happening -- everyone understands the
 > > value of metadata when it compes to processing and publishing
 > > information they possess; the jury is still out on as to whether
 > > semantics when available will be published alongisde the content
 > > for consumers to leverage.
 > >
 > > The current failure to  do this on the W3C site --- laudible
 > > though your reasons might be --- definitely casts a vote on the
 > > above question.
 > 
 > I'm sorry you conclude that because we didn't use every available  
 > technology at once, we have failed to show the utility of the ones we  
 > do use.
 > 
 >   _ Ian
 > 
 > >
 > > Ian Jacobs writes:
 > >> On 14 Oct 2009, at 1:21 PM, T.V Raman wrote:
 > >>
 > >>>
 > >>> somewhat  misses the point of the original poster, who was
 > >>> pointing at the years of effort in bringing RDF-level metadata
 > >>> integration into Web pages.
 > >>>
 > >>> I have no doubt that W3C  uses RDF internally, or that a lot of
 > >>> such content is written first in N3;) --- what this site could
 > >>> validate --- or repudiate (for that matter) is the feasability of
 > >>> expecting site owners to easily make available the metadata they
 > >>> have about their content  within the content of Web pages.
 > >>
 > >> We _could_ have done that, but we already had the data available as  
 > >> RDF.
 > >>
 > >> The good thing about the Semantic Web stack is that there are
 > >> different tools to meet different needs.
 > >> You can put data in documents (RDFa, GRDDL)), create data stories
 > >> (RDF), create databases accessible through queries (SPARQL).
 > >>
 > >> We saw no value at this time to port some our existing RDF data into
 > >> documents only to extract it again in order to use it.
 > >>
 > >>  _ Ian
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>> Ian Jacobs writes:
 > >>>> On 14 Oct 2009, at 2:50 AM, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
 > >>>>
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>> Ian,
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>> Indeed, very nice job re design and usability. However, I think we
 > >>>>> should
 > >>>>> also take into account what our 'customers' think [1], [2]:
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>> "so, are #semanticweb standards too complicated when even the new
 > >>>>> #w3c site
 > >>>>> doesn't use them? #stopsnakeoil"
 > >>>>
 > >>>> Hi Michael,
 > >>>>
 > >>>> We use RDF all over the place internally to manage the site. The  
 > >>>> RDF
 > >>>> that we use
 > >>>> is public:
 > >>>>
 > >>>> Group data:
 > >>>> http://www.w3.org/2000/04/mem-news/public-groups.rdf
 > >>>>
 > >>>> Technical reports data:
 > >>>> http://www.w3.org/2002/01/tr-automation/tr.rdf
 > >>>>
 > >>>> And there's lots more, such as the Talks data.
 > >>>>
 > >>>> We don't use RDFa where we have RDF source data.
 > >>>>
 > >>>> Of course we could do more (e.g., a sparql endpoint for TR  
 > >>>> searches),
 > >>>> and we are likely
 > >>>> to do more.
 > >>>>
 > >>>> Ian
 > >>>>
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>> "@iand apparently all of them: No (obvious) RDF export, no SPARQL
 > >>>>> API. Just
 > >>>>> some (broken!) hCalendar items."
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>> This is indeed a poor message we send out - why don't we eat our  
 > >>>>> own
 > >>>>> dogfood? We have a couple of nice standards (RDFa, GRDDL, etc.) in
 > >>>>> this area
 > >>>>> and should well be able to demonstrate that we are able to use  
 > >>>>> them,
 > >>>>> IMHO.
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>> Sorry for spoiling the party, but given the broad uptake of  
 > >>>>> semantic
 > >>>>> technologies in the governmental area (US, UK), the eCommerce  
 > >>>>> domain
 > >>>>> (GoodRelations), linked data stuff and Google and Yahoo!  
 > >>>>> processing
 > >>>>> structured data, I can't seriously explain to my colleagues or  
 > >>>>> other
 > >>>>> W3C
 > >>>>> customers why we don't have structured data (preferably in RDF)
 > >>>>> available at
 > >>>>> the new W3C site.
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>> Thoughts, anyone?
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>> Cheers,
 > >>>>>    Michael
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>> [1] http://twitter.com/bengee/status/4856670048
 > >>>>> [2] http://twitter.com/bengee/status/4856830531
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>> -- 
 > >>>>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas
 > >>>>> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
 > >>>>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
 > >>>>> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
 > >>>>> Ireland, Europe
 > >>>>> Tel. +353 91 495730
 > >>>>> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
 > >>>>> http://sw-app.org/about.html
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>>> From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
 > >>>>>> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:07:47 -0500
 > >>>>>> To: W3C Members <w3c-ac-members@w3.org>
 > >>>>>> Cc: <chairs@w3.org>
 > >>>>>> Subject: New W3C Web Site Launched
 > >>>>>> Resent-From: <chairs@w3.org>
 > >>>>>> Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:07:53 +0000
 > >>>>>>
 > >>>>>> Dear Advisory Committee Representatives and Chairs,
 > >>>>>>
 > >>>>>> Today W3C launched its new Web site:
 > >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/
 > >>>>>>
 > >>>>>> We also launched the new Member site:
 > >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/Member/
 > >>>>>>
 > >>>>>> I hope that you will find the new sites more usable. You will
 > >>>>>> notice
 > >>>>>> that some pages are missing content; we plan to continue to add
 > >>>>>> content over time and invite your contributions (especially from
 > >>>>>> Working Groups).
 > >>>>>>
 > >>>>>> I expect that over the next few days we will be fixing bugs in
 > >>>>>> style
 > >>>>>> sheets, and so forth. Feel free to send comments to site-
 > >>>>>> comments@w3.org.
 > >>>>>>
 > >>>>>> Thank you,
 > >>>>>>
 > >>>>>> Ian Jacobs, Head of W3C Communications
 > >>>>>>
 > >>>>>> --
 > >>>>>> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
 > >>>>>> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
 > >>>>>>
 > >>>>>>
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>>
 > >>>>
 > >>>> --
 > >>>> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
 > >>>> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
 > >>>>
 > >>>>
 > >>>
 > >>
 > >> --
 > >> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
 > >> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
 > >
 > 
 > --
 > Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
 > Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 19:15:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 October 2012 16:21:32 GMT