- From: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:09:40 +0200
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
+1 LGTM. On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 01:19, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> wrote: > +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/ >> > > > -- Thomas Steiner, Research Scientist, Google Inc. http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac
Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 10:10:25 UTC