Re: RDFa WG telecon minutes for 2010-10-21

Ok, I understand. Will the text say 'IANA registered'? I do not think it should (see my argument below). Personally, I think that any recommended RDF serialization should be a MAY; today this is RDF/XML, tomorrow in may include turtle and JSON. (But not PDF:-) I am not sure how I would define which non-RDF format would be acceptable.

But all these are MAY-s, ie, RDFa implementations may decide not to care... So I do not mind having it in the document, but I am not sure, mainly for the non-RDF format, that it makes too much sense. The RDF format is just a serialization of the same triples as the RDFa version, so that is more straightforward...

Thanks Nathan!

Ivan

P.S. non-IANA: Turtle is not officially registered as of now, because some people who are responsible objected to Turtle being registered as text/turtle, although that has been used in practice for a long time. It is claimed not to be a 'readable' thing, which has some truth in it, but practice is text/turtle... I am not sure what will happen if Turtle becomes a rec.



On Oct 23, 2010, at 16:22 , Nathan wrote:

> Hi Ivan,
> 
> IIRC we couldn't figure out the correct text for the resolution to express what we wanted to say, however it goes along the lines of: "MUST use RDFa Profiles in an RDFa approved host language, MAY use other RDF serializations, MAY use well-defined non RDF profiles"
> 
> This was to allow people to offer profiles in Turtle or RDF/XML etc, and the final MAY uses well-defined non-RDF was to allow future extensibility, where well defined means a registered media type with clearly defined rules in the specification, an example would be Mark's proposal 1, the plain text variant, if that was specified properly and went through as IANA registered then it would be allowed.
> 
> In reality though, whilst that door is left open, the only MUST is RDFa so interoperability is guaranteed, and for the time being the only alternative is other RDF Serializations (which technically is only RDF/XML since it's the only one which is IANA registered.. debatable but true-ish).
> 
> Hope that clarifies?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Nathan
> 
> Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Having seen the minutes:
>> I do not understand this resolution
>> "Provide language in the RDFa Core spec to allow non-RDFa, and non-RDF serializations for RDFa Profile documents. If implementers use RDF to express prefix and term mappings, they MUST use the vocabulary defined in the RDFa Core specification."
>> What does this mean for an implementation? If we do not include any non-RDF based specification for an RDFa profile, then the only choice of an implementation is to completely ignore this sentence. Of course, an implementation may add non-RDFa based profile interpretation if it also defines its own format, but then the whole cycle of profile specification and interpretation becomes absolutely implementation dependent. As a consequence, I do not see what the value is to have that as part of the specification text.
>> I think I would like to understand this before we go to last call...
>> Ivan
>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 19:05 , Manu Sporny wrote:
>>> Thanks to Shane for scribing (for 100 minutes straight)! The RDFa WG
>>> telecon minutes for October 21st, 2010 are now available here:
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-10-21
>>> 
>>> If you would like to read minutes from this or previous meetings, the
>>> public record of all RDFa WG telecons is available here:
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Meetings
>>> 
>>> Agenda
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0187.html
>>> Present
>>> Shane McCarron, Toby Inkster, Steven Pemberton, Manu Sporny,
>>> Mark Birbeck, Knud Möller, Nathan Rixham
>>> Regrets
>>> Ivan Herman, Ben Adida, Benjamin Adrian
>>> Scribe
>>> Shane McCarron
>>> Resolutions
>>> 1. RDFa Working group prefers the current text in the RDFa Core
>>>    document as a way of expressing RDFa Profile documents.
>>> 2. Provide language in the RDFa Core spec to allow non-RDFa, and
>>>    non-RDF serializations for RDFa Profile documents. If implementers
>>>    use RDF to express prefix and term mappings, they MUST use the
>>>    vocabulary defined in the RDFa Core specification.
>>> 3. Close ISSUE-37 - accept Ivan's edited changes[1] to Mark's
>>>    proposal.
>>> 4. RDFa Core 1.1 should proceed to Last Call with a publication date
>>>    of October 26th 2010.
>>> Topics
>>> 1. Alternate proposals for RDFa Profile format
>>> 2. Discussing any open objections
>>> 3. Can we take RDFa Core 1.1 to last call?
>>> 
>>> -- manu
>>> 
>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0231.html
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
>>> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>> blog: Saving Journalism - The PaySwarm Developer API
>>> http://digitalbazaar.com/2010/09/12/payswarm-api/
>>> 
>> ----
>> 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