- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:46:06 +0200
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4AE037EE.2050602@w3.org>
Mark, I do not really disagree with anything you say... my remark simply meant to say that we should have a clear plan in terms of process before we dive into the details. Maybe you guys have and I just do not have it (the 'new kid on the block effect'). You say: "As to where we should do this; I think we should do it in RDFa+HTML". Do you mean that, eventually, this group should turn into a task force of the HTML5 group? There were vague plans on chartering a IG? WG? In my view we should have a clear plan on these issues before getting into the details. That is all I meant to say... Ivan Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Ivan, > > It's not about 'enjoying' technical discussions over process-related > ones. If that were the case we wouldn't have any specifications. :) > > But I think we need to consider whether RDFa in HTML has to be the > same as RDFa in XHTML, for the reasons I'll explain. > > It may not have been obvious, but my list of topics prioritises the > main objections to RDFa from the proponents of Microdata. > > Some background: > > In my view, Microdata is a political proposal, cobbled together over a > weekend, for reasons best known to the author. (I have my own > theories, but that's not important.) > > However, what if instead of using his editor powers to add whatever he > liked to HTML5, Hixie had proposed some changes to RDFa. > > For example, in Microdata, you have to mark each item with @item. Even > if there is no 'type' for the item, you still need the attribute. Some > people might like that, and you could easily do the same with > @typeof="" in RDFa. > > Except I looked at RDFa and discovered that @typeof="" doesn't > actually produce a bnode, when it should. > > Hence putting that errata at the top of the list. > > Additionally, in Microdata you can express relationships using full > URIs; what if Hixie had proposed to this group that we support that? I > for one would have agreed with him. I know Steven would too, since he > has mentioned the consistency of URIs and CURIEs in all attributes, a > few times in the past, long before Microdata was proposed. > > So I suggest that although Hixie hasn't actually proposed it, we don't > do anyone any favours if we pretend that it's not important. > > I won't go through all of my list, because I just wanted to explain > why these two were at the top, when in the past we've been > prioritising things like @profile; it's because I believe we are > sophisticated enough in our approach to embrace other people's > proposals...even if they haven't made them. :) > > As to where we should do this; I think we should do it in RDFa+HTML. > We should put some effort into a backwards-compatible solution for > 'URIs everywhere', and so what if RDFa in HTML 'leapfrogs' RDFa in > XHTML? > > Regards, > > Mark > > -- > Mark Birbeck, webBackplane > > mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com > > http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck > > webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number > 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street, > London, EC2A 4RR) > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> I am sorry to act as a new kid on the block. I am one, after all, as far >> as this group is concerned:-) >> >> I would like to have a clear agreement of what _this_ group wants to >> achieve. If we are talking about errata, that is one thing. But some of >> the issues in this list heading for an updated recommendation, some sort >> of an RDFa 1.1, because it definitely adds functionality. Although each >> of us prefers to have discussions on the technical contents, we have to >> have a clear decision on what can be realistically achieved in the >> remaining two months that this group is chartered for, and what are the >> possibilities and plans for beyond that. >> >> And to be more blunt: I do not believe it is realistic to plan for an >> RDFa1.1 for this WG. As I said on the RDFa API thread, with the >> publication path to follow, with a CR, ie, implementation requirements, >> etc, the remaining 2 months is simply not enough. >> >> Again, much I would prefer to dive into the technical discussions, well, >> we have to talk about formalities... >> >> Sorry:-) >> >> Ivan >> >> Mark Birbeck wrote: >>> Hi Manu, >>> >>> I was going to flag up some of the work items that I think we need to >>> be keeping an eye on, and also suggest an order of priority. >>> >>> The first is that @typeof="" should generate a bnode. I think we >>> discussed this, and even agreed an errata, but I can't find the >>> reference, so I thought I'd better raise it again. >>> >>> Second is the use of 'URIs anywhere'; I think this is important for >>> the consistency of RDFa, and would also allow anyone who doesn't like >>> using CURIEs, or who wants to publish 'self-contained' markup snippets >>> that don't have prefix mappings, to do so. >>> >>> After that, I think the discussion about a technique for bundling >>> tokens is next. That has been called the @profile discussion, but of >>> course that might not be the way to do it. But whatever we decide on, >>> I think this is important work for some of the people that are >>> starting to define vocabularies for authors to use, such as Yahoo!, >>> Google, the Good Relations vocabulary, and so on. >>> >>> And then finally, the DOM API; I do think we need to do this, but I >>> think it comes lower down the list than these other things. >>> >>> I'm proposing this list, so that each week, as we have our calls, if >>> there is any time left for features and design, we can make sure that >>> we allocate the discussion in order of agreed priority. So this is my >>> list -- does anyone else have such a list? And does anyone want to >>> disagree with the suggested order? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> -- >>> Mark Birbeck, webBackplane >>> >>> mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com >>> >>> http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck >>> >>> webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number >>> 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street, >>> London, EC2A 4RR) >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> We have a telecon tomorrow, the agenda is below. Please review and >>>> add any items that you feel need to be discussed. >>>> >>>> ========== >>>> Thursday, October 22nd, 2009 >>>> 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge >>>> tel:+1.617.761.6200 conference code RDFA >>>> irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa >>>> Duration: 60 minutes >>>> Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim >>>> ========== >>>> >>>> Agenda: >>>> >>>> 1) Action Items >>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary >>>> >>>> 2) Discuss and approve Shane's errata text >>>> * Reserved word values and case-sensitivity[1] >>>> * Updated errata on XMLLiteral values and canonical XML >>>> >>>> 3) 9 new Unreviewed XHTML Test Cases >>>> * http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/ >>>> * TCs: 134, 140, 142, 147, 154 >>>> >>>> -- manu >>>> >>>> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0010.html >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) >>>> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. >>>> blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture >>>> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/08/30/equitable-culture/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -- >> >> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html >> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >> -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:46:33 UTC