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: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:25:27 -0400
Message-ID: <4A575D67.4060007@intertwingly.net>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Shane McCarron wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Re: "we were told"... if you can tell me who told you that, I will 
>> follow up... and resolve the issue.
> Sure.  It was Ralph, Steven, Ben, and me.  We all agree that the current 
> task force cannot produce rec-track documents that involve HTML because 
> we are not chartered to work on HTML.  YOUR committee can certainly 
> produce such documents.  Thanks for inviting us to work with your group 
> and directly edit your spec.  I am sure some of us will take you up on 
> that as time permits.

OK I think we are in sync.  I believe that "we were told and believed 
that we could not produce such a document under the auspices of the W3C" 
to be a false statement (though to see it as such requires thinking 
outside of the box), and I accept that "the existing task force is under 
the SemWeb and XHTML 2 Activities" was "not chartered to do so" (a.k.a. 
"the box")

>>> I would be pleased to release copyright on this document to the W3C 
>>> once someone in management there tells me there is a home for it.  
>>> Until then, ApTest is more than willing to support the activity.  
>>> Basically, and I am sure you agree with me here Sam, I refuse to let 
>>> bureaucracy get in the way of progress.
>> Do I qualify as "in management"?  
> See above, but no, you do not.  The W3C Director and the Advisory 
> Committee approve charters, and the charter of the RDFa Task Force is 
> within the remit of two other W3C groups whose charters have either 
> expired or are expiring.  Those charters are not going to be expanded to 
> encompass HTML4 nor HTML5 - at least, it seems pretty unlikely to me.  I 
> imagine what *could* happen from a management perspective is that the 
> HTML Working Group could also join the party - becoming an additional 
> sponsor of the RDFa Task Force.  However, given the HTML Working Group's 
> focus on producing a single specification rather than multiple specs 
> that inter-relate, it seems to make more sense (to that group) that 
> edits are just made directly on the monolithic HTML5 draft.  As I 
> mentioned above, I am sure some of us will take you up on that offer.

I will pursue with Mike Smith, Phillipe Le Hegaret and Tim Berners-Lee 
and will report back.

> Thanks again!

- Sam Ruby

P.S.  You are welcome to produce an update to a "monolithic" HTML5 
draft, but are not constrained to do so.
Received on Friday, 10 July 2009 15:26:09 UTC

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