- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 19:39:28 +0100
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- Cc: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <3BE67CDC-C996-4FD7-BA6C-1F59D96E96F7@w3.org>
Mark, there were two resolutions on the meeting. 1. http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-01-27#resolution_1 : "RDFa 1.1 will have one default profile for all Host languages." 2. http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-01-27#resolution_2 : "RDFa WG will define a set of prefixes and terms for the default profile; a mechanism will be proposed to update the default profile" My recollection is that the 1st resolution not only has been accepted, but was not really discussed afterwards; for the time being my impression is that this resolution is done (unless new issues come up to invalidate it). On the other hand, I agree with you that, though resolution #2 was also voted, the subsequent discussion did, in fact, re-open that particular issue. That is what I tried to say in my write-up. Apologies if I was not clear. Ivan On Jan 30, 2011, at 14:23 , Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Ivan, > > I'd just like to say that I don't believe there really was a > resolution for the issue of updating the profile on the telecon the > other day: > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> [...] >> >> 2. We have one default profile file, valid for all RDFa host languages. Host languages cannot define default profiles. >> >> 3. The default profile may contain term and prefix definitions. There is currently a discussion in the group as for how >> the content of the profile file would evolve. In particular, options on the table are: >> >> 3.a: A default profile is defined by the RDFa WG and is published alongside the RDFa 1.1 specification. The URI of >> that profile is fixed and its content is then frozen. New (future) versions of RDFa may define their own profile but those >> should reside at a different URI-s. >> >> 3.b: A default profile is defined by the RDFa WG and is published alongside the RDFa 1.1 specification. The URI of >> that profile is fixed. The Working Group will also develop a mechanism whereby the default profile can be regularly >> updated by extending it with new prefixes and terms. There should be a clear and documented policy how that should >> happen, and that policy should work beyond the existence of the RDFa Working Group. >> >> I believe there is an agreement on item #1 (we never explicitly discussed this, but I believe what is there is the >> common idea we have on what a default profile is). There is also an agreement on item #2 (we also have a >> Resolution at [1]). > > The problem is that as this resolution was being voted on the > discussion changed and a number of problems were raised with the > wording -- and not just by me -- so we started discussing new wording. > We discussed new wording on the phone, but also you can see in in IRC > that new wording was being proposed there. We continued to discuss > this whole idea, and as you know people stayed on the call after the > usual time was finished. But although at no point did we decide on a > replacement proposal, I think the confusion and disagreement over the > wording of the recorded proposal mean it would be wrong to conclude > that the vote was unambiguous. I'd like to suggest that we re-run that > vote. > > Regards, > > Mark ---- 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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Sunday, 30 January 2011 18:39:24 UTC