- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:44:52 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Ivan, I think I disagree with you on this point. Ivan Herman wrote: > I think that people amy contest the validity of this use case, at least > the way it is formulated in terms of 'blogging'. This is actually a very important goal: to have a blogging use case. We don't want people to think that RDFa is "just for complex scientific data." It should be usable for simple things, too. > - the comparison with the access to Atom/RSS is misleading, because an > Atom/RSS feed usually does *not* include things like foaf:knows or > anything similar anyway! That's just extra data that your newsreader can choose to ignore. The point is that the same source can be both a rendered HTML page and a newsfeed. > - the text says "if Paul edits one of his blog posts, the corresponding > structured data is also automatically updated"; well, if I change my > blog, the corresponding RSS/Atom feeds are also automatically updated. Okay, but that's your blog tool that has to keep everything in sync on the backend by re-baking your site, or by dynamically responding to new queries. This lets you build *much simpler* blog engines. I've added a short mention of this. > I think we should not refer to 'blog' here but simply to Paul's home > page that contains this information. Whether this extra information is > on Paul's blog is, in this respect, besides the point. Sure, but then we lose the use case that the bloggers will flock to. I think we need to keep in mind that bloggers are a huge constituency, and we need to take their needs into account specifically. > Alternatively, if we want to keep to a blog, what *could* be said is > that I can *add* this extra information to my blog which indeed does > *not* appear through the usual RSS/Atom mechanism. *That* may be a good > selling point (and some of the use cases below, like use case #4, make > use of this additional mechanism.). I'm a bit confused as to why this is bothering you. Having extra data is not a problem in RDF, right? > (Note that, unfortunately, that means editing the blog item at the > source level, because the blog system's wswyg editing offers only a > limited capacity to do these things. Maybe we could add a reference that > the blog system becomes RDFa aware and adds this feature to its wswyg > part, too) Yes, that's more or less what my latest edit says. Check it out and let me know if this makes sense. -Ben
Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2007 15:45:01 UTC