W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Tasks in support of HTML Microdata

From: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:56:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD_aa-_o2UM48WoXuNH_UKa2fUS9pBbnx-5tWp2J-j=6W6C7XA@mail.gmail.com>
To: WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Um. Sorry again. I became tangled in my own attempt to disentangle
various email threads. I'll move the below to the Turtle thread.

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry - I read the 12 December 2011 draft a bit more thoroughly. I see
> the spec includes Turtle as optional in section 1.2:
> "The document may be published in a number of other RDF serialization
> formats, such as N3 [N3] or Turtle [TURTLE]. Any serialisation must be
> transformable automatically and in a standard manner to an RDF Graph,
> using technologies such as GRDDL [GRDDL-PRIMER]."
> But " Processing the WebID Profile" does not mention this.
> So the immediate question w.r.t Turtle is whether or not to *require* Turtle?
> I would suggest yes, for the reasons in my previous email, quoted below...
> Thanks
> -Patrick
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd like to begin a new thread on this list for tracking and closing
>> the issue of supporting HTML Microdata. Please put non-specific (i.e.
>> not strictly aimed at resolving this issue) in a separate thread with
>> a different subject line.
>> Let's keep this thread short and to the point.
>> There is an issue on record:
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/track/issues/66
>> The next tasks toward completion are the following:
>> a. Spec how a WebID profile graph would look serialised in terms of Microdata
>> b. Spec how an application can process RDF/XML _and_ RDFa _and_
>> Microdata in a uniform fashion for the basic verification (i.e.,
>> public key description)
>> c. Spec how an application can process RDF/XML _and_ RDFa _and_
>> Microdata in a uniform fashion for arbitrary information, such as
>> profile fields (display name, homepage, online accounts, etc.)
>> * Does anyone disagree that these are the next steps in support of
>> HTML Microdata for WebID profiles?
>> * Does anyone have questions about these tasks?
>> * Does anyone intend to take these on?
>> * Is anyone obligated to take these on?
>> * What happens to Issue 66 if no one moves it forward?
>> Thanks
>> -Patrick
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 18:56:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:50 UTC