- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:50:21 +0100
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4785F86D.2090909@w3.org>
One of the nice aspects of being on this side of the pond is that while I am sleeping, you guys over there in the New World sort out things (well, Mark seems to be on his machine day and night, but maybe he has a cloned instance somewhere in the US...:-). Meaning that I do not have to go through the long mails in all details... Your two scenarios are well formulated although, I must say (but I am biased!) I am not sure the consequences of Ben's rules are indeed as dramatic as you describe:-). Until now I could happily encode what I wanted in RDFa without too much problems. To be fair, the whole question did not even come to my mind until the discussion broke out! Note also that the @src issue is also in the balance. Yes, in some way it is different, but not completely. See my analysis in http://www.w3.org/mid/4784A149.4030304@w3.org in conjunction with Mark's model. It is special to @src, I believe, and may be somehow amended, but somebody should look at that again to either prove me wrong or right... Ivan Manu Sporny wrote: > First, I do believe that Mark's approach is the proper way to do things > from a programming/engineering/graph theory perspective. > > Everybody that I've heard explain RDF/N3 have said that a triple is: > > SUBJECT PREDICATE OBJECT . > > If we assume that people will understand that @about/@href/@resource can > be used to set the subject OR object (depending on whether or not you're > chaining), then there are no issues. Unfortunately, I don't think many > will understand that rather advanced concept until they've been immersed > in RDFa for several months. The danger is: What happens if people don't > understand that? > > My initial thought on "accidental" triple generation was: "Too bad, > that's what the markup states. They'll get burned, they'll learn and > they'll fix their markup. They should learn how to use RDFa properly. > They should understand what they're typing." > > Ben's rules makes it harder to generate triples accidentally, as well as > simplifying what can/can't generate a triple. This is at the cost of > slightly more verbose markup and a compromise on orthogonality between > what @about/@src/@href/@resource can do. > > Mark's rules are very powerful and @about/@src/@href/@resource are quite > orthogonal. In a way, they are simpler to explain... but harder to truly > grasp without a basic understanding of graph theory. You can express > things very succinctly, the danger being that you might generate > something you didn't mean to. > > Mark Birbeck wrote: >> So no-one is proposing an alternate model to mine, they are just >> suggesting that some of the formulations that my model enables should >> be prescribed. > > In that case, perhaps we can look at the issue assuming that the > decision we are about to make is going to be disastrous. > > Scenario #1: We go with Mark's rules. Ben is right. Spurious triples > are generated on a widespread scale, HTML markup must be > changed drastically to incorporate RDFa. > > Outcome: Bloggers start unknowingly creating a large volume of spurious > triples that express the wrong relationships, thinking that they > understand which triples they are creating. They don't check their work, > they're lazy. The semantic web becomes a sea of triples... half are > correct, half are absolutely wrong. > > How do we fix it: Replace Mark's rules with Ben's rules in RDFa 2.0... > all of a sudden tons of triples disappear off of web pages (because > people will probably just change the DOCTYPE at the top of the page - or > people are using tag-soup parsers). The publishers that were using > Mark's rules properly are very annoyed that they just sporadically lost > 3 years worth of triples - they don't know which ones they lost because > it is impossible to check automatically. > > Scenario #2: We go with Ben's rules. Mark is right. Publishers have a > much harder time expressing semantics succinctly using > RDFa. > > Outcome: Triples aren't being generated because blogger's aren't using > the proper markup. Bloggers complain that RDFa is difficult to use > because @href/@resource don't do what is expected... it's also too > verbose, adoption is slow. > > How do we fix it: Education and tools that generate the proper triples. > If we have to, Ben's rules are replaced with Mark's rules in RDFa 2.0. > However, we will have a ton of real-world use cases to see if Mark's > rules would actually help or hurt matters at that point. > > So, while I partially agree with Mark's approach, I can't support it > because of the two disaster scenarios I've outlined above. Ben's rules > are going to be less harmful in the long run if we're wrong. Most > importantly, the semantic web can recover from Ben's rules. > > If there is a place to be cautious about "accidental" triple generation, > it is in version 1.0 of RDFa. > > And if people complain about not being able to use @href/@resource to > complete a triple, we have a great answer for them: > > "Then you're going to love the @href/@resource upgrade in RDFa v2.0!" > > :) > > -- manu > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 10:50:18 UTC