Re: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> Neither RDFa, nor Microdata are extension mechanisms that allow
>>>> adding "independently developed vocabularies" to HTML.
>>>
>>> Could you describe the criteria by which one can recognise a mechanism
>>> for allowing the addition of independently developed vocabularies? I'm
>>> baffled as to what the point of RDFa and Microdata would be if not
>>> exactly that.
>>
>> It would be helpful to demonstrate *how* Ruby or ITS can be added using
>> RDFa or Microdata. (examples would be sufficient)
> 
> Your question doesn't make sense.  Neither Ruby nor ITS are vocabularies 
> designed for RDFa or Microdata, and I'm sure you are well aware of that. 
>  No-one has claimed that those specific vocabularies could be added 
> using RDFa or Microdata, so you seem to be making a strawman argument. 

"The HTML WG is encouraged to provide a mechanism to permit 
independently developed vocabularies such as Internationalization Tag 
Set (ITS), Ruby, and RDFa to be mixed into HTML documents."

So if somebody claims that RDFa or Microdata are covered by this part of 
the charter then it's *natural* to ask how they can fulfill the requirement.

> You also seem to be avoiding the question that Hixie actually asked.

That actually was an answer. Just demonstrate how these formats address 
what the charter is asking for.

> Do you consider the following to be "independently developed 
> vocabularies", as referred to by the charter or not?  If not, why not? 
> What is the criteria you are using to determining what is or is not an 
> independent vocabulary?
> 
> * Microdata Vocabularies for vCard, vEvent and Licensing, as described
>   in the Microdata draft, and other Microformats that may be mapped to
>   Microdata by the Microformats community
>   http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/#mdvocabs
> * The Creative Commons vocabulary for RDFa?
>   http://wiki.creativecommons.org/RDFa
> * Dublin Core, FOAF, etc.
> 
> Each of those could be included using either RDFa or Microdata, as they 
> have been designed for doing so.

Of course these are independently developed, and also some kind of 
vocabulary. Nobody is disputing that.

But the charter lists three concrete examples, so what's the point of 
coming up with a *different* set of vocabularies for which there is a 
mapping?

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 09:58:28 UTC