During Monday's telecon, it was agreed that all WG members should have a 
chance to express an opinion on the issue of whether or not we allow 
unrestricted RDF to be included within POWDER documents. Specifically 
this affects:

1. The ability to include FOAF/DC info within the document as opposed to 

2. The ability to include arbitrary RDF in the descriptor sets.

This issue is flagged as a Feature at Risk within the Formal doc [1]. 
Opera has made the case for dropping this feature [2] - i.e. *requiring* 
all POWDER documents to be attributed to an entity described in a 
separate file and limiting the expressivity of descriptor sets to 
literal values and RDF resources.

Opera's principal reason for asking for this to be dropped is that for 
some applications, processing of POWDER purely as XML is possible 
without the need for an RDF processor to be included. Such applications 
include the mobile device paradigm where processing power, memory etc. 
are limited.

Vodafone has indicated support for this position [3].

In the other corner is NCSR who argue that requiring an external FOAF 
file (or its DC homologue) is an unnecessary burden on POWDER authors 
(as evidence, Ivan H points out that W3C doesn't have a FOAF file). 
Limiting the expressivity of POWDER by design goes against natural best 
practice (I paraphrase - Stasinos/Antonis may wish to correct me).

I am keen to get this resolved no later than Monday's call. If you have 
a view, please express it on this list.




Phil Archer
Chief Technical Officer,
Family Online Safety Institute

Register now for the annual Family Online Safety Institute Conference 
and Exhibition, December 11th, 2008, Washington, DC.

Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2008 13:59:22 UTC