- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:52:11 +0100
- To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <45BF69AB.9030405@w3.org>
Hi Ben, I like your latest edits on that one. I think we are in wild agreement:-) I. Ben Adida wrote: > 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 -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2007 15:52:16 UTC