W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > August 2015

Re: Going to CR with AS 2.0? [was Re: Social Web WG agenda for 11 August 2015]

From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:19:04 +0200
Message-ID: <55CA1268.3000208@csarven.ca>
To: hhalpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
CC: public-socialweb@w3.org
On 2015-08-11 14:55, hhalpin wrote:
> On 2015-08-10 15:07, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>> On 10 August 2015 at 20:57, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> Now available:
>>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-08-11 [1]
>> Note:
>> "PROPOSED: Publish AS 2.0 as a Candidate Recommendation"
> I think we would need to first:
> 1) Prove we've solicited input from the communities in the WG charter
> (this can be done by sending them emails, and then having pointers to
> the archive) in the liason list of the WG
> 2) Closed all open issues.
> 3) We also should have some evidence of interoperable implementations.
> While I do support pushing to CR as soon as we can with AS2.0 and would
> be disappointed if we can't get to CR by TPAC 2015, I'm not sure if
> we're there yet. The communities should be formally notified (and I
> don't think the microformat community is particularly happy right now),
> and we still have an open issue. My preference would simply be to
> harmonize the AS2.0 vocabulary with the microformat voocabularies. I do
> know there's a number of interoperable implementations in progress, a
> health-check is in order for them.
> I am at risk for the call today (on vacation and in transit), but I hope
> we can discuss this more and would be happy to explain (or Sandro could)
> over this telecon or the next one.
>     cheers,
>         harry
>> This is great news!
>>> --
>>> Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web
>>> Technologies - IBM Software Group
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-08-11

I'll try to illustrate a different angle to microformats (mf) in AS, so 
that we can see its influence on the state of things, and agree on a way 
to move forward:

You are an implementer, a user, or simply a person that loves to read 
W3C Recommendations on a hot sunny day. You arrive at the W3C'S AS core 
or vocabulary and want to pick up on a few AS terms so that you can go 
ahead and use it to express your data. You go through the statements and 
find the one that is in line with the data that you have or what you 
want to be able to state. You then start to look at the examples to get 
a better understanding on how it all fits. You copy/paste an example 
into your own template, and adjust what's needed.

Each of the JSON-LD, Turtle, RDFa, Microdata examples *use the AS 
vocabulary*, however, mf does not. The main point of the AS vocabulary 
is ... the AS vocabulary. Not schema.org, not FOAF, not h-iwc-nih-fud, 
and not xyz.

Why would a user interested in using the AS vocabulary want to see 
anything but the AS vocabulary in the examples? The current state of the 
document is doing exactly that. It is premature for a number of reasons, 
and ISSUE-44 tries to capture the main lines. (Aside: I think the most 
sensible thing to do is to continue with the efforts on the mapping 
between AS and mf vocabs, and see how far that gets. When that is 
complete and also when the missing/suitable microformats become 
available, the mf community can push that forward, and so people 
interested AS and mf can put them to use.)

Would it be appropriate to have CSV examples using the schema.org 
vocabulary? Because that is precisely equivalent to the mf examples at 
the moment. Not to mention broken.

Is that an appropriate UX to read W3C recommendations? Would this be the 
type of recommendation that the W3C will put its stamp on? How much time 
is this WG willing to give an external community to get up to speed? 
What's at risk?

If mf can use the AS2 vocabulary, that would be great. I want to see 
this happen so that I can also support microformats, but I'm not 
convinced at this time.

I hope I was able to address my concerns.

Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2015 15:19:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:19 UTC