- From: Sebastian Germesin <sebastian.germesin@dfki.de>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:23:10 +0200
- To: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
- Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
+1 from my side too. Cheers, Sebastian Am 11.07.2011 um 12:09 schrieb Thomas Steiner: > +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 > -- M.Sc. Sebastian Germesin Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH (DFKI) Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3 66123 Saarbruecken Germany Tel.: +49.681.85775.5079 Fax.: +49.681.85775.5021 email: sebastian.germesin@dfki.de GPG: http://www.dfki.de/~germesin/gpg/germesin_dfki.gpgkey web: http://www.dfki.de/~germesin skype: neogermi1337 twitter: germesin github: http://github.com/neogermi ### # #
Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 10:23:40 UTC