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

Re: New W3C Web Site Launched

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:44:32 -0500
To: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>
Message-Id: <8A69FD6A-CA83-4FF0-BB74-232ECA927D2C@w3.org>
Cc: michael.hausenblas@deri.org, site-comments@w3.org, chairs@w3.org, w3c-ac-forum@w3.org

On 14 Oct 2009, at 2:14 PM, T.V Raman wrote:

>
> 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.

As I said, the Semantic Web toolkit is meant to address a number of  
use cases.
We had RDF available (and have had it for a decade or so) and so for  
our particular
purpose, it did not make sense to put it back into HTML.

We may well come up with some applications for RDFa as well, but for  
the TR pages,
we didn't find that necessary.

  _ Ian

>
> 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
>

--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 19:44:42 GMT

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