W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2009

Re: A proposal for establishing an RDFa IG

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:22:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4A56436B.70605@intertwingly.net>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Ben Adida wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Before I agree, let me give my perspective.  People are going to use
>> RDFa in HTML, and as such I feel that such usage should be documented,
>> test suites set up, and libraries made to interoperate, yadda, yadda,
>> yadda.  I don't happen to agree that that work as largely done.
> I agree that this should be done. It's not done yet, but it's well on
> its way (and the work on RDFa in XHTML1.1 is of course a huge help in this.)
>> Talking specifically about a "RDFa in HTML" draft, I don't see how
>> anybody can take a position that microdata is in scope for the HTML WG
>> and RDFa in HTML is not.
> Well, Henri did just that in his blog post, and Ian clearly thinks that.
>  Therein lies the problem. We want to work on RDFa and address real use
> cases without being dependent on Ian. Sure, joint work can happen to
> enable RDFa in HTML5, but since HTML5 is willing to ignore what Google,
> Yahoo, CC, the UK government, and many others are doing, then *some*
> group needs to take on that work. That's the point of the RDFa IG.

Ben, you seem to be equating HTML5 with some subset of individuals 
within the Working Group.  I don't believe that it is the case that each 
and every participant in the Working Group is willing to ignore what 
Google, Yahoo, CC, the UK government, and many others are doing.

I do believe it to be the case that those on this list who do care about 
what Google, Yahoo, CC, the UK government, and many others, many of 
which who are also members of the HTML Working Group, have yet to put 
forward a draft specification forward for consideration as a FPWD that 
meets the needs of these individuals, despite the fact (and I know it to 
be a fact) that a number of them have sufficient access to begin work on 
such a document.

I believe we need to work together.  If you are not willing to do that 
-- and furthermore, if "That's the point of the RDFa IG" --  then lets 
make this interesting.  I, Sam Ruby, do hereby publicly oppose the 
formation of such an IG.  I believe that the W3C has for too long 
operated in a dysfunctional manner by NOT addressing issues head on, and 
instead facilitating confusion[1] by creating overlapping groups with 
unclear boundaries and missions, and in this case with the apparent 
expressed purpose of avoiding addressing the underlying issue.

I believe that Mike and I have expressed the way we would like to see 
things progress:


Ben - we've met, and Manu we appear to be geographically close enough 
that we could easily meet for lunch half way someplace if that was of 
interest.  I hope that you both appreciate that I have no ill will 
towards RDFa.  To the contrary, I would like to see this work continue 
and succeed.  Just not this way.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://tinyurl.com/lc5b79
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 19:23:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:03 UTC