W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > July 2013

Re: PROPOSAL: Add prefixes to RDFa Core initial context

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:07:39 +0200
Message-ID: <51F3A9FB.6080005@w3.org>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: St├ęphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>, W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, W3C Team Archive <w3t-archive@w3.org>
Hi guys, sorry for the late reactions, but I was on vacations...

My plan is/was that, if a change occurs on the initial context for RDFa, this
must be announced on the Semantic Web Activity News (which has an RSS feed[1,2,3
for the different feed formats]). This announcement has to be made by whoever
updates the initial context, which means, I guess, the lead of the relevant
Activity in the W3C team. If I have not properly done that in the past, I merit
a slap on my wrist!

As Gregg says, this should be done rarely, ie, every 6 months or even more. What
triggers a change is if the landscape changes significantly (in which case some
sort of a new analysis should be done along the lines of [4] which provided the
first set) or if a number of new W3C recommendations are published for vocabularies.

I guess that, if we agree on this, a relevant note should be added to[5]. I will
do it as soon as we agree on the details.

How does that sound?



[1] http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/feed/atom/
[2] http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/feed/rdf/
[3] http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/feed/
[4] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/profile/data/
[5] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1

Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>> On 29 March 2013 12:02, St├ęphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>>> Done. See also
>>>> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2013/03/29/new-prefixes-added-to-the-rdfa-core-initial-context/
>>>> I have put up a G+ item (cc-d it to some of you), and tweeted it; it would
>>>> be good to beat the bushes for implementers. Is there a way to send out a
>>>> reference through rdfa.info?
>>>> pyRdfa has the new prefixes already. Is it necessary to extend the test
>>>> cases?
>>> A testing for these prefixes would be a good way to make sure all
>>> implementations are up to date and have these new prefixes. I'll work on
>>> such new test.
>> We are updating our implementation. As part of that, I've been asked
>> what the plans are for test cases. Did one ever get added?
> Part of this question is if the test suite should continue to change after the specifications are released. I certainly see the advantage of having tests that verify that default prefixes, terms and vocabulary definitions are properly handled by a processor.
>> Related question: does W3C state its intentions anywhere regarding
>> management of the Initial Context? Masahide Kanzaki also raised this
>> question when I saw him in Tokyo recently: the context is quite an
>> integral part of any modern RDFa parser. It would help if parser
>> writers had some good mechanisms for getting notified of changes.
> It certainly would. I believe the intention was not to update it too frequently, but I don't believe there's an announcement mechanism; there should be.
>> Perhaps RSS-like feeds from the Initial Context page. It's a pity
>> http://www.w3.org/2000/08/w3c-synd/ doesn't seem to work any more. Or
>> optional low-traffic mailing list.  Or 'what's new' markup in the
>> page.
>> Currently the page is signed by Ivan, but is inconsistent: "Updated:
>> 2012-11-21 $Date: 2013-03-29 10:51:55 $"
>> i.e. it shows that something happened in March but doesn't say what.
>> The closest I can find to a public history is
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20130407124329*/http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1.html
>> (although I know it is in CVS behind the scenes). Similarly with
>> tests, if there is a new relevant test, that would be great to know
>> about in some systematic way.
> I agree that including a history of changes to the document, at least in a human readable form is something we should do.
>> I guess the main thing is to be clear how often it is likely to be
>> updated. Maybe we can just say to check back 'every n months'; 3? 6?
>> And that the goal is to minimise improvements.
> About every 6 months is I believe the frequency we were looking for, but I'm not sure that's documented anywhere.
> Gregg
>> (I'm thinking about similar issues for schema.org currently fwiw)
>> Dan

Ivan Herman, W3C
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153

Received on Saturday, 27 July 2013 11:08:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:34 UTC