- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:19:30 -0400
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
+1, looks good to me. Gregg On Jul 10, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Manu Sporny wrote: > Please review and send explicit change suggestions before midnight on > Friday. If we need to revise, we will do so by Sunday (midnight). The > final version will go out to the TAG on this coming Sunday. > > Gregg: Struck "What is the range of data.." statement. > > Tom: Reworded the last paragraph a bit to make it more clear that > technical issues/bugs need to be filed. > > DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 > > This is an e-mail response from the RDF Web Applications Working Group > to the Technical Architecture Group at the W3C regarding a recent > concern[1] that was brought to our attention. > > We have already submitted a list of people[2] that we believe should be > a part of the RDFa/Microdata Task Force. Additionally, we have had a > discussion[3] in the group about the intended purpose and goals of the > Task Force. > > In general, the group believes that a unified approach to structured > data on the Web will reduce confusion in the marketplace and thus > accelerate the growth of Linked Data and the Semantic Web. The group > also thinks that the effort will be fruitless without broad > participation and implementation of the Task Force's findings. > > The rest of this e-mail covers the concerns that the RDF Web > Applications Working Group has regarding the new Task Force and attempts > to provide guidance for addressing each concern. > > CONCERN: Multiple specifications for the same task > > During the TAG discussion, Larry Masinter produced a question that is at > the heart of the issue. "Does anyone want there to be more than one > structured data syntax published by W3C that accomplishes the same task?" > > In hindsight, it was a mistake for the HTML WG to allow the publication > of two specifications that accomplish effectively the same task (from > the viewpoint of the public). It is natural that nobody wanted to block > the work of others - but since that hard decision was not made, and > since some very large companies are attempting to make that decision for > their customers, it is creating a great deal of confusion in the > marketplace. > > We recommend that the question that Larry asked is required to be > answered by the Task Force. > > CONCERN: Scope of structured data in HTML not clearly defined > > What are the goals of the structured data in HTML work? Is it to support > the RDF data model? Support some other Microdata-like data model? > Support all of the use cases identified? Only support use > cases that are "mainstream" for Web developers? Provide a browser API > and unified view of structured data on the web? How much complexity > should be exposed to a beginner of structured data? If there is to be a > unified path forward for structured data on the Web, it is important to > understand which use cases we're supporting and which ones we're leaving > behind. > > We recommend that the Task Force identify a clear set of goals and use > cases that are to be supported by the structured data in HTML work. The > questions above are provided as suggested discussion points. > > CONCERN: Consensus on "No Change" > > There is a concern that the group will be provided with very difficult > decisions and instead of wanting to make a hard decision, they will > resolve to not change anything. This will be viewed as a failure of the > group. > > This issue is an opportunity for the W3C to demonstrate that the > organization is capable of finding consensus and driving positive change > among a broad constituency. > > We recommend that a "no change" result should not be an option for the > Task Force. > > CONCERN: Key implementers will choose to not be involved. > > It is vital that companies that have deployed, or intend to deploy, > structured data are active participants in the Task Force. This includes > having the right set of people there as well as ensuring that they are > committed to the work of the group. The XForms/WebForms and XML/HTML > Task Forces largely failed in their mandate due to inactivity by major > participants. > > We recommend that personnel from relevant companies are involved and > that those personnel have decision making power to enact change in their > organizations related to the Task Force findings. > > CONCERN: Agreement and then non-action > > It could be that there is agreement among the Task Force participants to > do something, but there is no follow-through. Solid commitments should > be made and the Task Force should follow-up to report on progress > regarding those commitments. Perhaps the HyperText Coordination Group > should play a part in this work. > > We recommend that the Task Force gather commitments to enact change at > the end of the discussion phase and then follow-up and report on > progress regarding the commitments. > > CONCERN: Slow creation of Task Force > > The HTML WG expects Last Call to end in early August for the HTML+RDFa > and HTML+Microdata specs. Similarly, the RDF Web Apps WG was one week > away from entering Candidate Recommendation with RDFa 1.1. It is > questionable whether or not the Task Force will be able to be formed in > the near future. The announcement of this Task Force has effectively > placed a hold on work in both Working Groups. There is concern that work > that is done over the next 3 (or more) months will be invalidated by the > Task Force or by a formal objection by the TAG. > > The note by the TAG is effecting both Working Group time lines. It is > imperative that the Task Force is put together quickly and performs its > work in an expedient manner, or is dissolved and another path forward is > chosen. > > It is vital that the TAG and both Domain Leads step forward and take > responsibility for the efficient creation and management of this Task > Force. That is, it seems that neither the RDF Web Apps WG nor the HTML > WG thinks it is their job to create or manage this Task Force. Since the > original note came from the TAG, the ball is in your court. > > We recommend that the creation of the Task Force is made to be a > priority of the TAG, Domain Leads, and the Director. > > CONCERN: TAG Note is not actionable > > There is concern in the HTML WG and the RDF Web Apps WG that the note > provided by the TAG is not actionable[4] without further information > from the TAG (formal objection or bug reports) or Task Force (findings > turned into bug reports). The result is that the Working Groups must > either ignore the TAG note until the Task Force has completed their > work, or halt their work until the Task Force has completed their work. > > We recommend that the TAG submit a formal objection containing technical > issues for both specifications, or that the TAG submits a series of bugs > for both HTML+RDFa and HTML+Microdata in addition to RDFa Core 1.1 in > the RDF Web Apps WG. > > DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 DRAFT3 > > -- manu > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Jun/0058.html > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jul/0011.html > [3] > http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-06-30#Official_Position_on_WWW__2d_TAG_issue > [4] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/30-html-wg-minutes.html#item09 > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) > President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: PaySwarm Developer Tools and Demo Released > http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/05/05/payswarm-sandbox/ >
Received on Sunday, 10 July 2011 23:20:13 UTC