RE: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version

David/Ben,

I think Ben is right that this is not something that can be resolved
quickly...or rather the URI collision part isn't. (Speaking for myself I'm
happy to see dc:creator removed--it's always confused people.)

One part of the problem is that the whole point of RDF/A is to be able to
carry metadata within a 'normal' document. This means that *by definition*
we have what could be perceived as two resources at the same URL--we have an
XHTML document, and we have metadata for that document. Both are 'carried'
by the same set of XML elements, but how they are *processed* depends on the
agent retrieving them. It seems to me that the TAG work on fragment
identifiers does not allow for this possibility, since it says that if the
document is XHTML, then a fragment identifier must be referring to an XML
element. (In passing this seems wrong to me anyway, since it is supposed to
be up to the user agent to make use of the fragment identifier.)

Anyway, I'm not saying that this can't be resolved in some way that fits
with the TAG work, and I have some ideas that I would like to bounce around
the list, but I would again agree with Ben's point that we should go ahead
with the draft, but with an understanding that this work will continue.

Regards,

Mark


Mark Birbeck
CEO
x-port.net Ltd.

e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net
t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/
w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/

Download our XForms processor from
http://www.formsPlayer.com/  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ben Adida
> Sent: 24 January 2006 21:31
> To: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
> Cc: SWBPD list; public-rdf-in-xhtml task force
> Subject: Re: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version
> 
> 
> 
> 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 22:55:54 UTC