Re: [RDFa] Re: Comment on Use Case #1: [Re: an update of the use case document]

Hi Ben,

I like your latest edits on that one. I think we are in wild agreement:-)

I.

Ben Adida wrote:
> Ivan,
> 
> I think I disagree with you on this point.
> 
> Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
>>I think that people amy contest the validity of this use case, at least
>>the way it is formulated in terms of 'blogging'.
> 
> 
> This is actually a very important goal: to have a blogging use case. We
> don't want people to think that RDFa is "just for complex scientific
> data." It should be usable for simple things, too.
> 
> 
>>- the comparison with the access to Atom/RSS is misleading, because an
>>Atom/RSS feed usually does *not* include things like foaf:knows or
>>anything similar anyway!
> 
> 
> That's just extra data that your newsreader can choose to ignore. The
> point is that the same source can be both a rendered HTML page and a
> newsfeed.
> 
> 
>>- the text says "if Paul edits one of his blog posts, the corresponding
>>structured data is also automatically updated"; well, if I change my
>>blog, the corresponding RSS/Atom feeds are also automatically updated.
> 
> 
> Okay, but that's your blog tool that has to keep everything in sync on
> the backend by re-baking your site, or by dynamically responding to new
> queries. This lets you build *much simpler* blog engines. I've added a
> short mention of this.
> 
> 
>>I think we should not refer to 'blog' here but simply to Paul's home
>>page that contains this information. Whether this extra information is
>>on Paul's blog is, in this respect, besides the point.
> 
> 
> Sure, but then we lose the use case that the bloggers will flock to. I
> think we need to keep in mind that bloggers are a huge constituency, and
> we need to take their needs into account specifically.
> 
> 
>>Alternatively, if we want to keep to a blog, what *could* be said is
>>that I can *add* this extra information to my blog which indeed does
>>*not* appear through the usual RSS/Atom mechanism. *That* may be a good
>>selling point (and some of the use cases below, like use case #4, make
>>use of this additional mechanism.).
> 
> 
> I'm a bit confused as to why this is bothering you. Having extra data is
> not a problem in RDF, right?
> 
> 
>>(Note that, unfortunately, that means editing the blog item at the
>>source level, because the blog system's wswyg editing offers only a
>>limited capacity to do these things. Maybe we could add a reference that
>>the blog system becomes RDFa aware and adds this feature to its wswyg
>>part, too)
> 
> 
> Yes, that's more or less what my latest edit says.
> 
> Check it out and let me know if this makes sense.
> 
> -Ben

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf