Re: Writeup of yesterday's discussion on RDFa default profiles

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