W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > January 2006

Re: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version

From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:31:21 -0500
Message-Id: <DB133E4B-A3B8-4662-87D0-019425FBFCCD@mit.edu>
Cc: "SWBPD list" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, "public-rdf-in-xhtml task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>


David,

I agree, I think we should mark the problems. I'd rather not try to  
rush the fixing of these problems, though, as I think they'll need  
very careful editing. Assuming we do mark the problem carefully, do  
you think the impact of section #2 is small enough to warrant moving  
ahead?

-Ben

On Jan 24, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:

>
> I hate to say this, but I think the URI identity issues that Alistair
> raised in email[3] after yesterday's teleconference are important  
> enough
> to delay publication until they are either fixed or visibly marked as
> problems.  The WebArch document is clear that URI collisions[4] are A
> Bad Thing.  It would seem wrong to endorse such collisions, even
> implicitly.
>
> David Booth
>
> [3] Identity issues raised by Alistair:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0113.html
> [4] TAG's Web Architecture:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ben Adida
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:03 PM
>> To: SWBPD list
>> Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml task force
>> Subject: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I made a mistake in the version of the RDF/A Primer that I presented
>> at the telecon yesterday. I have just finished uploading the right
>> version, which you can find here:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-01-24-rdfa-primer
>>
>> With the WG and specifically the reviewers' approval (DBooth,
>> GaryNg,
>> and also "unofficial" reviewers), I am hoping that we can rapidly
>> agree that this latest version should be the one that becomes our
>> first published WD.
>>
>> The only difference in content is that the new version has an extra
>> section (section #2), and the old sections 2 and 3 are merged into
>> the new section 3 for purely organizational purposes (no text
>> is lost
>> or added in those sections, just reorganized.) The point of the new
>> section 2 is to add an even simpler introductory example. We believe
>> this additional section is in line with the comments we
>> received from
>> reviewers, both official and earlier, unofficial reviews. In
>> fact, we
>> began writing it in part to respond to some of these early
>> comments 2
>> weeks ago.
>>
>> The already-approved version is still at the old URL for
>> comparison:
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-01-15-rdfa-primer
>>
>> I want to stress that this is entirely *my* mistake: the TF had
>> agreed [1,2] that this second version would be presented to the WG
>> yesterday, and I simply forgot. Publishing these additional examples
>> now is quite important for getting the word out about RDF/A and
>> making it competitive against other metadata inclusion proposals,
>> outside of W3C, that are gaining traction.
>>
>> Apologies for my mistake. I hope you'll see that these edits do not
>> constitute a substantive change to the document, rather they help
>> make the same points more appealing to and understandable by
>> a larger
>> audience.
>>
>> -Ben Adida
>> ben@mit.edu
>>
>> [1] Discussion during last segment of January 10th TF
>> telecon: http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-swbp-minutes
>>
>> [2] Discussion, at beginning, of Mark's new examples during January
>> 17th TF telecon:
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-swbp-minutes
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 21:32:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:46 UTC