Re: Proposed update for Microdata to RDF specification

> On Dec 2, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 01 Dec 2014, at 19:36 , Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Dec 1, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think we should at the minimum make it clear in the note that this is, currently, *not* a microdata feature, and it may be later or it may never be.
>> 
>> This is the issue from the doc:
>> 
>> [[[
>> FEATURE AT RISK 5
>> Experimental support itemprop-reverse. This attribute is not part of [MICRODATA] and is included as an experimental feature. Specific feedback from the community is requested. Based on addoption, the attribute may be considered for inclusion in forthcoming versions of [MICRODATA] and this note.
>> ]]]
>> 
>> That seems to address your concerns; would you like to see something else? I think this issue would remain open when publishing, so the text would remain. Alternatively, if the group decides not to go this way, we could resolve the issue and remove the issue marker.
> 
> I think, just as an editorial remark, let us not use the 'at risk' term, which is usually used, in the W3C jargon, for notes in drafts to decide what goes and does not go into a final publication. We can simply call this 'experimental feature', or 'exploratory feature', or something like that.

Updated with your recommendation, and added a diff to the previous version.

>>> I still feel uncomfortable; I think we are overstepping our document's goals. But I will not lie down on the road if the majority wants to go this way.
>> 
>> I don’t think we quite have a ground-swell of support just yet, I’d like to get more feedback. But, in many ways, I think that this document is more useful, in particular, for schema.org usage than the original. There’s really no way for @itemprop-reverse to be supported in a JSON serialization, so the Microdata spec would just be updated to indicate that the attributes are defined. (Of course, a hypothetical direct JSON-LD conversion could make use of this, but … never mind.)
> 
> O.k. Let us move on...
> 
> B.t.w., a minor thing: it is probably a good idea to use the ' - Second Edition' in the title, to clearly differentiate with the previous. The differences between the two versions are significant, so let us not do as if this was simply an edited version of the old one…

Good idea, done.

Gregg

> Thanks!
> 
> Ivan
> 
>> 
>> Gregg
>> 
>>> Ivan
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> Ivan Herman
>>> Tel:+31 641044153
>>> http://www.ivan-herman.net
>>> 
>>> (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 01 Dec 2014, at 19:06, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 1, 2014, at 4:08 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 17:18 null <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 01.12.2014, 14:38, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/microdata-rdf/issues
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> However, issue #5, on @itemprop-reverse, is really open. Personally, I do not believe that feature should be included in the conversion spec; it amounts to an extension of microdata, which goes beyond what this document is for...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, much as I like the idea, I think we should put the feature into microdata rather than wedge it in through this spec.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Having a spec for extracting item proper ever we into triples is a healthy precursor for having actual tools which do that, which in turn is a big part of making the case that such a change to microdata would be useful and used. This is only a Note - my opinion is strongly in favour of including it, although with health/status warnings.
>>>>> 
>>>> Agreed, Hixie has indicated that it could be included in Microdata if there’s significant use in the wild, but without some spec text, this can’t really happen. It is defined as an experimental AT-RISK feature, so it could go away in a future update of the Note if this doesn’t happen. (My guess is that if it is used in a schema.org example, we’ll see quite a bit of adoption).
>>>> 
>>>> Gregg
>>>>> Dan
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> 
>>>>> Chaals
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ivan
>>>>>>> On 01 Dec 2014, at 05:55 , Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Last call for comments on this draft. Unless issues are raised by Friday, we'll prep it for publication.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Gregg Kellogg
>>>>>>> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>>>>>>> On Nov 19, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Based on feedback and emerging requirements, I’ve prepared another draft for an update to the Microdata to RDF Note [1]. As this is a Note of the Semantic Web Interest Group, please send feedback to semantic-web@w3.org. This update represents a substantial simplification to the algorithm by eliminating unused mechanisms and simplifies generation of implied triples (e.g. schema:additionalType).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This Working Draft is an update of the W3C Interest Group Note, published in October 2012. This update simplifies processing using the following mechanisms:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> • Experimental support for @itemprop-reverse has been added. This attribute is not part of [MICRODATA] and is included as an experimental feature. Specific feedback from the community is requested. Based on addoption, the attribute may be considered for inclusion in forthcoming versions of [MICRODATA] and this note. (see issue 5 [2])
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> • Top-level items were previously included in a md:item RDF Collection to reconstruct the order that items appear in the DOM. This has also proven to not be useful and has been dropped. (see issue 6 [3])
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> • A property value may be extracted from the @content attribute of the meta element. (see issue 7 [4])
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> • A property value may be extracted from the @value attribute of the data or meter elements. If this value has numeric form, it will produce a datatyped literal using the appropriate datatype from [XMLSCHEMA11-2] (see issue 8 [5] and issue 9 [6])
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> • Property URI generation was under control of the propertyURI registry setting. This setting could previously have taken either the _vocabulary_ or _contextual_ settings. As _contextual_ was never used in a registry, and usage in the wild favors the vocabulary setting, support for _contextua_l has been eliminated, and consequently support for the propertyURI element within the registry. This issue remains open pending community review; specifically, anyone depending on this feature should provide feedback as requested below. (see issue 10 [7])
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> • An item having multiple values for a given property could previously having been placed in an RDF Collection if the multipleValues registry setting were set to _list_. Although the previous registry did have such a setting for some schema.org values, this is not honored by most search engines, and so has been dropped, and consequently support for the multipeValues element within the registry. This issue remains open pending community review; specifically, anyone depending on this feature should provide feedback as requested below. (see issue 10 [7])
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> • Lastly, the previous update introduced Vocabulary Expansion using entailment rules adopted from [RDFA-CORE] under control of the vocab_expansion option. Support for Vocabulary Expansion has been substantially simplified, and is no longer under control of an option. This issue remains open pending community review; specifically, anyone depending on this feature should provide feedback as requested below. (see issue 10 [7])
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The intention is to publish this draft as a new version of the Interest Group Note after gathering and incorporating community input. Please provide feedback by 5 December 2014. Please see GitHub issues for a discussion of tradeoffs considered in this version.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> An updated test suite is referenced from the spec. A diff to the previous revision is available using the ReSpec key-sequence SHIFT-CTRL-ALT-S when viewing the spec.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Gregg Kellogg
>>>>>>>> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [1] http://w3c.github.io/microdata-rdf
>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/w3c/microdata-rdf/issues/5
>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/w3c/microdata-rdf/issues/6
>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/w3c/microdata-rdf/issues/7
>>>>>>>> [5]https://github.com/w3c/microdata-rdf/issues/8
>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/w3c/microdata-rdf/issues/9
>>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/w3c/microdata-rdf/issues/10
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>>>>>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>>>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>>>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
>>>>> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2014 19:31:18 UTC