RE: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version

I hate to say this, but I think the URI identity issues that Alistair
raised in email[3] after yesterday's teleconference are important enough
to delay publication until they are either fixed or visibly marked as
problems.  The WebArch document is clear that URI collisions[4] are A
Bad Thing.  It would seem wrong to endorse such collisions, even
implicitly.

David Booth

[3] Identity issues raised by Alistair: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0113.html
[4] TAG's Web Architecture: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ben Adida
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:03 PM
> To: SWBPD list
> Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml task force
> Subject: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I made a mistake in the version of the RDF/A Primer that I presented  
> at the telecon yesterday. I have just finished uploading the right  
> version, which you can find here:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-01-24-rdfa-primer
> 
> With the WG and specifically the reviewers' approval (DBooth, 
> GaryNg,  
> and also "unofficial" reviewers), I am hoping that we can rapidly  
> agree that this latest version should be the one that becomes our  
> first published WD.
> 
> The only difference in content is that the new version has an extra  
> section (section #2), and the old sections 2 and 3 are merged into  
> the new section 3 for purely organizational purposes (no text 
> is lost  
> or added in those sections, just reorganized.) The point of the new  
> section 2 is to add an even simpler introductory example. We believe  
> this additional section is in line with the comments we 
> received from  
> reviewers, both official and earlier, unofficial reviews. In 
> fact, we  
> began writing it in part to respond to some of these early 
> comments 2  
> weeks ago.
> 
> The already-approved version is still at the old URL for 
> comparison: 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-01-15-rdfa-primer
> 
> I want to stress that this is entirely *my* mistake: the TF had  
> agreed [1,2] that this second version would be presented to the WG  
> yesterday, and I simply forgot. Publishing these additional examples  
> now is quite important for getting the word out about RDF/A and  
> making it competitive against other metadata inclusion proposals,  
> outside of W3C, that are gaining traction.
> 
> Apologies for my mistake. I hope you'll see that these edits do not  
> constitute a substantive change to the document, rather they help  
> make the same points more appealing to and understandable by 
> a larger  
> audience.
> 
> -Ben Adida
> ben@mit.edu
> 
> [1] Discussion during last segment of January 10th TF 
> telecon: http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-swbp-minutes
> 
> [2] Discussion, at beginning, of Mark's new examples during January  
> 17th TF telecon:
> http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-swbp-minutes
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 20:49:36 UTC