- From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:58:47 +0200
- To: "Public POWDER" <public-powderwg@w3.org>
Hi, I think that dropping this outweighs the inconvenience of having to create a separate profile. I am a fan of separation of concerns, especially in the early stages. Opera's point of view goes in the direction of potentially increasing the uptake for this technology. Furthermore I think it would be a good think for companies and organizations to create profiles that describe them. This information could be used all over the place. What I cannot judge is if we loose flexibility by limiting the RDF in POWDER docs. However, I think this ability may well be reserved for future versions of POWDER. Kai > -----Original Message----- > From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Archer > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:59 PM > To: Public POWDER > Subject: PROPOSED RESOLUTION on Arbitrary RDF in POWDER > > > 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 separately > > 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. > > Thanks. > > Phil. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-formal-20080815/#status > [2] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Sep/0020.html > [3] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Sep/0022.html > > -- > Phil Archer > Chief Technical Officer, > Family Online Safety Institute > w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/ > > Register now for the annual Family Online Safety Institute > Conference and Exhibition, December 11th, 2008, Washington, DC. > See http://www.fosi.org/conference2008/ > > >
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2008 08:59:29 UTC