Henri's RDFa statements in the XHTML2 FAQ

[Ian Hickson]

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Ian Hickson wrote:
> >
> > Nor do I think it's fair to cast the concerns that have been raised
> > regarding RDFa as dubious, and nor am I aware of any serious effort to
> > actually fix all the problems, only some of the more eggregious ones
> > like the use of xmlns="". For example, I'm not aware of any plans to
> > remove the prefix mechanism from RDFa altogether, or replace the
> > URI-based identifier mechanism with something more friendly.
>
> That may be because there's absolutely no agreement that these aspects
> *are* problematic.

Indeed. My point was just that Ben said that the "dubious claims regarding
RDFa", which I presume are in fact exactly the claims that aren't accepted
by everyone, such as the ones I list above, are "very easily addressed".
They are in fact _not_ all being addressed.

Whether that is because not everyone agrees with them, or because they are
difficult to address without fundamental changes, or anything else,
doesn't really affect my point.

--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

[Manu Sporny]

Ian Hickson wrote:

>>>> Therein lies the problem. We want to work on RDFa and address real
>>>> use cases without being dependent on Ian.
>>> Which use cases does microdata not address?
>> The problems with microdata have been addressed before by others, I'm
>> not going to spend the time going into them yet again.
>
> I'm not aware of any use cases that microdata doesn't handle. There have
> been issues raised, but none are use cases that aren't addressed. Since
> you claimed the problem was to do with addressing "real use cases", if
> there really are some, I would be very grateful if you could elaborate on
> what they are.

Here are a couple of links to remind all of us about prior conversations
we've had related to microdata and not addressing certain technical
issues as well certain stated use cases.

Eduard: "microdata is even more restricted: it leaves out the cases that
RDFa leaves out, but it also leaves out some cases that RDFa was able to
handle."
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019749.html

Kristof: "Being unable to deal with all use cases sometimes is a
          feature."
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019807.html

Ian: "I couldn't find a good solution to this problem."
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019839.html

Ian: "Use cases for which I haven't been able to find solutions"
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019886.html

Hopefully, that will jog our collective memory.

> I [do not] think it's fair to cast the concerns that have been raised
> regarding RDFa as dubious, and nor am I aware of any serious effort to
> actually fix all the problems

The concerns had been documented back in May 2009:

http://rdfa.info/wiki/rdfa-in-html-issues

and we are working to fix the issues:

http://rdfa.info/wiki/rdfa-in-html-issues#RDFa_Task_Force_Discussion_Order

> For example, I'm not aware of any plans to remove the
> prefix mechanism from RDFa altogether or replace the URI-based identifier
> mechanism with something more friendly.

We were working on RDFa Profiles (August 2008) before we became heavily
involved with HTML+RDFa. Ironically, addressing some of the HTML5
community's concerns has temporarily taken us away from the RDFa
Profiles work.

http://rdfa.info/wiki/RDFa_Profiles

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/

[Manu Sporny]

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> Nor do I think it's fair to cast the concerns that have been raised
>>> regarding RDFa as dubious

You're right - it's not fair, and it's not productive either.

The only reasonable response to claims of dubiousness is to deny them.
Whether the accused is guilty of the act or not is largely irrelevant to
the outcome. All it does, and could possibly ever do, is reduce each of
our willingness to work with the other.

It does not create a healthy environment for productive discussion, or
worse, it distracts from the technical work in front of us. We should
stay away from such language no matter how justified any of us feel in
saying such things.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/

[rubys]

Ben Adida wrote:

> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Before I agree, let me give my perspective.  People are going to use
>> RDFa in HTML, and as such I feel that such usage should be documented,
>> test suites set up, and libraries made to interoperate, yadda, yadda,
>> yadda.  I don't happen to agree that that work as largely done.
>
> I agree that this should be done. It's not done yet, but it's well on
> its way (and the work on RDFa in XHTML1.1 is of course a huge help in this.)
>
>> Talking specifically about a "RDFa in HTML" draft, I don't see how
>> anybody can take a position that microdata is in scope for the HTML WG
>> and RDFa in HTML is not.
>
> Well, Henri did just that in his blog post, and Ian clearly thinks that.
>  Therein lies the problem. We want to work on RDFa and address real use
> cases without being dependent on Ian. Sure, joint work can happen to
> enable RDFa in HTML5, but since HTML5 is willing to ignore what Google,
> Yahoo, CC, the UK government, and many others are doing, then *some*
> group needs to take on that work. That's the point of the RDFa IG.

Ben, you seem to be equating HTML5 with some subset of individuals
within the Working Group.  I don't believe that it is the case that each
and every participant in the Working Group is willing to ignore what
Google, Yahoo, CC, the UK government, and many others are doing.

I do believe it to be the case that those on this list who do care about
what Google, Yahoo, CC, the UK government, and many others, many of
which who are also members of the HTML Working Group, have yet to put
forward a draft specification forward for consideration as a FPWD that
meets the needs of these individuals, despite the fact (and I know it to
be a fact) that a number of them have sufficient access to begin work on
such a document.

I believe we need to work together.  If you are not willing to do that
-- and furthermore, if "That's the point of the RDFa IG" --  then lets
make this interesting.  I, Sam Ruby, do hereby publicly oppose the
formation of such an IG.  I believe that the W3C has for too long
operated in a dysfunctional manner by NOT addressing issues head on, and
instead facilitating confusion[1] by creating overlapping groups with
unclear boundaries and missions, and in this case with the apparent
expressed purpose of avoiding addressing the underlying issue.

I believe that Mike and I have expressed the way we would like to see
things progress:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0132.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0017.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0018.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0019.html

Ben - we've met, and Manu we appear to be geographically close enough
that we could easily meet for lunch half way someplace if that was of
interest.  I hope that you both appreciate that I have no ill will
towards RDFa.  To the contrary, I would like to see this work continue
and succeed.  Just not this way.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://tinyurl.com/lc5b79

[Manu Sporny]

Sam Ruby wrote:
> I believe we need to work together.  If you are not willing to do that
> -- and furthermore, if "That's the point of the RDFa IG" --  then lets
> make this interesting.  I, Sam Ruby, do hereby publicly oppose the
> formation of such an IG.

You're opposing a concept that not one of us have put forward... the
purpose of the RDFa IG is so that we /can/ work together... not so we
can go off into our own little world and give people "advice".

The RDFa IG would have a direct hand in editing each language/WG using
RDFa - that is, if the WG wishes to work with us. Personally, I was in
agreement with a number of the constraints that you and Doug placed on
the RDFa IG.

> Talking specifically about a "RDFa in HTML" draft, I don't see how
> anybody can take a position that microdata is in scope for the HTML WG
> and RDFa in HTML is not.  As such, if there is interest in working on
> such a document, then I will do my part to enable those who wish to do
> so have direct access to CVS, etc.

Sure, RDFa in HTML is certainly in the HTML WG's scope... RDFa in SVG is
certainly /not/ in the HTML WG's scope. I don't think it makes much
sense to set up an RDFa group in the HTML WG and another one in the SVG
WG, and another one for ODF... unless I'm missing your point. It
stresses resources for RDFa that are spread too thin already.

Doug Schepers wrote:
> If you think it needs to happen in an IG, I would support that and urge
> others to as well, with the proviso that you will need to work directly
> with implementers to make sure all your bases are covered and the end
> result is suitable.

Again, I think this is a perfectly valid provision - we want to see RDFa
adopted as widely as possible, so it makes sense to be involved with the
process, in each WG adopting RDFa, from the point where we are needed to
the point where it is deployed, through the process where implementation
experience can feed the next revision.

> If that is the intent instead, then I fully support that work.  If there
> is enough overlap between the people doing the work for HTML and those
> doing the work for SVG that it makes sense to formally recognize this as
> an IG so that a separate mailing list can be set up for coordination,
> then I think that's a dandy idea.

I'm fairly certain that that was the general concept - but no need for a
separate mailing list. This mailing list would just continue (or be
renamed, or whatever else needs to happen to cause the least amount of
destabilization to the RDFa community).

> I believe that the W3C has for too long
> operated in a dysfunctional manner by NOT addressing issues head on, and
> instead facilitating confusion[1] by creating overlapping groups with
> unclear boundaries and missions, and in this case with the apparent
> expressed purpose of avoiding addressing the underlying issue.

I think placing the RDFa work under the HTML WG would create several
unclear boundaries and confuse the mission of RDFa, especially when we
want to develop some documents for SVG. What underlying issue do you
think we're not addressing?

> I believe that Mike and I have expressed the way we would like to see
> things progress:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0132.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0017.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0018.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0019.html

Just because nothing has happened in the past two weeks since these
announcements were made, don't assume that nothing is going to continue
to happen. We're all very busy and it takes time to ramp these things
up. I will be looking at inserting text specific to RDFa into the HTML5
spec this weekend (and was planning on doing so before seeing your e-mail).

> Ben - we've met, and Manu we appear to be geographically close enough
> that we could easily meet for lunch half way someplace if that was of
> interest.

Let's set up a time to meet in person, then. Early-to-mid August is the
earliest time on my calendar. We'll coordinate offline.

> I hope that you both appreciate that I have no ill will
> towards RDFa.  To the contrary, I would like to see this work continue
> and succeed.  Just not this way.

I think you're misunderstanding what we're attempting to express. I
don't know what you mean by "Just not this way", but I have a feeling
that there is a good bit of mis-communication going on right now. I
don't see much of a difference between what we were planning on doing
and what you've outlined in the referenced e-mails above.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/

[rubys]

Manu Sporny wrote:

> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> I believe we need to work together.  If you are not willing to do that
>> -- and furthermore, if "That's the point of the RDFa IG" --  then lets
>> make this interesting.  I, Sam Ruby, do hereby publicly oppose the
>> formation of such an IG.
>
> You're opposing a concept that not one of us have put forward... the
> purpose of the RDFa IG is so that we /can/ work together... not so we
> can go off into our own little world and give people "advice".
>
> The RDFa IG would have a direct hand in editing each language/WG using
> RDFa - that is, if the WG wishes to work with us. Personally, I was in
> agreement with a number of the constraints that you and Doug placed on
> the RDFa IG.

I like the word "would" above (much better than "perhaps" from emails
past, and it was the proposal in those emails that I object to).

In this email, I have issues with the words /can/ and "us".

Help me do the math.  Mark Birbeck is a member of the HTML working
group.  I suspect that if he expressed even the slightest bit of
interest, Doug would induct him into the SVG working group before he had
an opportunity to change his mind.  Let's further posit that he is
interested in doing some of this work (in fact, I picked Mark's name
because it is listed first on [1])...

Lets look first at the word /can/.  From this, I can only conclude that
you and Ben believe that it would not be possible for Mark to do this
work without a separate IG.  I am curious as to why you might believe
that.  Any reason I can figure out ends up being one that I would object to.

Now lets look at the word "us".  Can I join the RDFa IG?  Mark is
already a member of the HTML WG.  Who is this "us" (and by implication,
who is the "them") in your world view?

These groups are merely labels.  There effectively isn't any limit to
the number of labels a person can have.  Mark can simultaneously be in
the HTML WG, the SVG WG, and even the RDFa IG should one ever come into
existence.  The number of labels Mark accumulates doesn't give him what
he really needs, which if he is like most of us, is simply more hours in
the day.

These labels not only have negligible positive value, they actually can
have significant negative value.  I cringe when I see people attribute
nefarious motives to the WHATWG, as if the participants there are of one
mind and always act in unison.  At this very moment, it is abundantly
clear that there are significant differences between Rob Sayre and
Maciej's position on video codecs.  And you know what?  That's healthy.

My first open source project was PHP.  My first post to the mailing list
was a sketch of an idea integrating PHP and Java.  The response I got?
"Here is your CVS account".  The prevailing feeling in PHP land at the
time was that if people screw up, that's what CVS is for.  I'd like to
see a little more of that attitude here.  Some people will succeed, some
will fail, but I would much rather have people try and fail than to tell
people that they aren't allowed to try.

More relevant to this conversation: my second open source project was
Apache Tomcat, which I became the release manager before.  Up to that
point, the project was operated like it was owned and operated by Sun
Microsystems.  On Dec 17, 1999, Jason Hunter (a fellow committer) noted
that the jakarta.apache.org news page was updated to say that Tomcat 3.0
was released.  It seems that a number of Sun individuals got together in
a conference room and decided that since they were about to disappear
for the holiday it was time to make a release.

I was made the release manager of the next Tomcat release to ensure that
that never happened again.

Tying this back into HTML... what the HTML WG needs is more individuals,
and in particular, individuals who are willing to do the work (be it
writing bug reports to writing spec text to writing test cases to
whatever).  It doesn't need more labels.  And in particular, when Mark
participates in the HTML working group he does so as a member of the
HTML working group.  Any other labels he may also have are irrelevant in
the context of that work.

I'll close with saying that there are valid reasons to have an IG.  I
merely submit that "perhaps", /can/, and "us" aren't a part of those
reasons.

- Sam Ruby

[Manu Sporny]

Sam Ruby wrote:

> Manu Sporny wrote:
>> You're opposing a concept that not one of us have put forward... the
>> purpose of the RDFa IG is so that we /can/ work together... not so we
>> can go off into our own little world and give people "advice".
>>
>> The RDFa IG would have a direct hand in editing each language/WG using
>> RDFa - that is, if the WG wishes to work with us. Personally, I was in
>> agreement with a number of the constraints that you and Doug placed on
>> the RDFa IG.
>
> I like the word "would" above (much better than "perhaps" from emails
> past, and it was the proposal in those emails that I object to).

Good, then let's use the word "would".

> In this email, I have issues with the words /can/ and "us".
>
> Help me do the math.  Mark Birbeck is a member of the HTML working
> group.  I suspect that if he expressed even the slightest bit of
> interest, Doug would induct him into the SVG working group before he had
> an opportunity to change his mind.  Let's further posit that he is
> interested in doing some of this work (in fact, I picked Mark's name
> because it is listed first on [1])...
>
> Lets look first at the word /can/.  From this, I can only conclude that
> you and Ben believe that it would not be possible for Mark to do this
> work without a separate IG.  I am curious as to why you might believe
> that.  Any reason I can figure out ends up being one that I would object
> to.

Ben and I have slightly different opinions on how to proceed, as do
Shane, Mark, Ralph and Steven. We're feeling this out publicly before
proceeding to allow everyone the opportunity to provide feedback on a
direction that would best optimize everybody's very constrained
schedules and time. You're the one that asked if you could do anything
to help, I responded with a proposal, and here we are... discussing the
possibilities in an open forum.

As far as I am concerned, it would be /easier/ for Mark and the rest of
us to carry out the work in a separate IG. We /could/ do it in HTML WG -
but there have been concerns raised about whether that is the correct
framing for the RDFa work since it involves not just HTMLWG, but SVGWG
and WHATWG (and ODF).

>From my understanding, the RDFa Task Force evaporates at the end of the
year and it would be nice if we had a "home base" of sorts that could
coordinate RDFa among the various WGs listed above.

It's not a matter of "not possible" - it's a matter of "best mode" or
"ideal framework". As you allude to below - we only have so many hours
that we can volunteer our time. Unless somebody would like to pay us to
do this standards work (which would not only be appreciated, but would
accelerate the work), we're stuck trying to scrap together bits and
pieces of time to donate to W3C. All this while attempting to keep our
respective companies afloat in this tumultuous economy.

I don't want to waste my time working on RDFa in the HTML WG only to
find out that our hands are tied by W3C process when attempting to port
the work to SVG. Or finding out that HTML WG's mission has changed due
to another XHTML2-like event.

For a long time we could not work on HTML+RDFa because we weren't
chartered to do so - in fact, we still aren't. We're just doing the work
and hoping that HTML WG doesn't have a change of heart in the mean time.

> Now lets look at the word "us".  Can I join the RDFa IG?  Mark is
> already a member of the HTML WG.  Who is this "us" (and by implication,
> who is the "them") in your world view?

I try not to have an "us" vs. "them" world view. Of course you'd be able
to join the RDFa IG - everybody on here would be able to participate,
contribute, etc.

The "us" I was referring to in the e-mail was "The RDFa Community" -
most everyone on this mailing list. Just because you use the word "us"
in a paragraph doesn't necessarily mean you need a "them".

> These groups are merely labels.  There effectively isn't any limit to
> the number of labels a person can have.  Mark can simultaneously be in
> the HTML WG, the SVG WG, and even the RDFa IG should one ever come into
> existence.  The number of labels Mark accumulates doesn't give him what
> he really needs, which if he is like most of us, is simply more hours in
> the day.

The bottom line with the RDFa IG is that we're trying to create a home
for the RDFa work that is stable and lightweight enough to focus on the
technical work without having to worry too much about some of the other
things that go on that have nothing to do with RDFa (W3C Process,
discussions about HTML unrelated to RDFa, etc.).

For example, if the RDFa work was absorbed by the HTML WG, does that
mean we should discuss all things RDFa on the main HTML WG telecon?
Would there be an HTML+RDFa Task Force? What happens if we want to work
on some SVG-related stuff?

If we had to share telecon time with HTML WG, that could be very
damaging to progress. We easily fill up our hour-long weekly telecons.

This is about hours in the day and focusing on RDFa - it would be harder
to do that with HTMLWG/non-RDFa-related e-mails filling up our inboxes.
Some of us have the time to keep up with 3-4 WGs, others don't.

> The prevailing feeling in PHP land at the
> time was that if people screw up, that's what CVS is for.  I'd like to
> see a little more of that attitude here.

What do you mean by "here"?

> Some people will succeed, some
> will fail, but I would much rather have people try and fail than to tell
> people that they aren't allowed to try.

Good - that sounds healthy. I believe that most of the RDFa community
wants that as well.

> Tying this back into HTML... what the HTML WG needs is more individuals,
> and in particular, individuals who are willing to do the work (be it
> writing bug reports to writing spec text to writing test cases to
> whatever).

Sure, that's what every WG needs more of - HTML WG is not alone in that
need.

> It doesn't need more labels.  And in particular, when Mark
> participates in the HTML working group he does so as a member of the
> HTML working group.  Any other labels he may also have are irrelevant in
> the context of that work.
>
> I'll close with saying that there are valid reasons to have an IG.  I
> merely submit that "perhaps", /can/, and "us" aren't a part of those
> reasons.

I agree, those words (perhaps, can, and us), used in the way you defined
them, aren't good reasons to have a separate RDFa IG. My point is that I
don't think that I was defining them as you were. I hope the text above
clarifies that position.

This conversation is getting very meta - by focusing on single words
used in paragraphs, I feel that we're moving away from discussing the
requirements of an RDFa IG. I don't know if that option is completely
undesirable to you at this point, or if the text above clarified what I
was proposing to make it a viable path forward?

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/

[rubys]

Manu Sporny wrote:

> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Manu Sporny wrote:
>>> You're opposing a concept that not one of us have put forward... the
>>> purpose of the RDFa IG is so that we /can/ work together... not so we
>>> can go off into our own little world and give people "advice".
>>>
>>> The RDFa IG would have a direct hand in editing each language/WG using
>>> RDFa - that is, if the WG wishes to work with us. Personally, I was in
>>> agreement with a number of the constraints that you and Doug placed on
>>> the RDFa IG.
>> I like the word "would" above (much better than "perhaps" from emails
>> past, and it was the proposal in those emails that I object to).
>
> Good, then let's use the word "would".
>
>> In this email, I have issues with the words /can/ and "us".
>>
>> Help me do the math.  Mark Birbeck is a member of the HTML working
>> group.  I suspect that if he expressed even the slightest bit of
>> interest, Doug would induct him into the SVG working group before he had
>> an opportunity to change his mind.  Let's further posit that he is
>> interested in doing some of this work (in fact, I picked Mark's name
>> because it is listed first on [1])...
>>
>> Lets look first at the word /can/.  From this, I can only conclude that
>> you and Ben believe that it would not be possible for Mark to do this
>> work without a separate IG.  I am curious as to why you might believe
>> that.  Any reason I can figure out ends up being one that I would object
>> to.
>
> Ben and I have slightly different opinions on how to proceed, as do
> Shane, Mark, Ralph and Steven. We're feeling this out publicly before
> proceeding to allow everyone the opportunity to provide feedback on a
> direction that would best optimize everybody's very constrained
> schedules and time. You're the one that asked if you could do anything
> to help, I responded with a proposal, and here we are... discussing the
> possibilities in an open forum.
>
> As far as I am concerned, it would be /easier/ for Mark and the rest of
> us to carry out the work in a separate IG. We /could/ do it in HTML WG -
> but there have been concerns raised about whether that is the correct
> framing for the RDFa work since it involves not just HTMLWG, but SVGWG
> and WHATWG (and ODF).
>
>>From my understanding, the RDFa Task Force evaporates at the end of the
> year and it would be nice if we had a "home base" of sorts that could
> coordinate RDFa among the various WGs listed above.
>
> It's not a matter of "not possible" - it's a matter of "best mode" or
> "ideal framework". As you allude to below - we only have so many hours
> that we can volunteer our time. Unless somebody would like to pay us to
> do this standards work (which would not only be appreciated, but would
> accelerate the work), we're stuck trying to scrap together bits and
> pieces of time to donate to W3C. All this while attempting to keep our
> respective companies afloat in this tumultuous economy.
>
> I don't want to waste my time working on RDFa in the HTML WG only to
> find out that our hands are tied by W3C process when attempting to port
> the work to SVG. Or finding out that HTML WG's mission has changed due
> to another XHTML2-like event.
>
> For a long time we could not work on HTML+RDFa because we weren't
> chartered to do so - in fact, we still aren't. We're just doing the work
> and hoping that HTML WG doesn't have a change of heart in the mean time.
>
>> Now lets look at the word "us".  Can I join the RDFa IG?  Mark is
>> already a member of the HTML WG.  Who is this "us" (and by implication,
>> who is the "them") in your world view?
>
> I try not to have an "us" vs. "them" world view. Of course you'd be able
> to join the RDFa IG - everybody on here would be able to participate,
> contribute, etc.
>
> The "us" I was referring to in the e-mail was "The RDFa Community" -
> most everyone on this mailing list. Just because you use the word "us"
> in a paragraph doesn't necessarily mean you need a "them".
>
>> These groups are merely labels.  There effectively isn't any limit to
>> the number of labels a person can have.  Mark can simultaneously be in
>> the HTML WG, the SVG WG, and even the RDFa IG should one ever come into
>> existence.  The number of labels Mark accumulates doesn't give him what
>> he really needs, which if he is like most of us, is simply more hours in
>> the day.
>
> The bottom line with the RDFa IG is that we're trying to create a home
> for the RDFa work that is stable and lightweight enough to focus on the
> technical work without having to worry too much about some of the other
> things that go on that have nothing to do with RDFa (W3C Process,
> discussions about HTML unrelated to RDFa, etc.).
>
> For example, if the RDFa work was absorbed by the HTML WG, does that
> mean we should discuss all things RDFa on the main HTML WG telecon?
> Would there be an HTML+RDFa Task Force? What happens if we want to work
> on some SVG-related stuff?
>
> If we had to share telecon time with HTML WG, that could be very
> damaging to progress. We easily fill up our hour-long weekly telecons.
>
> This is about hours in the day and focusing on RDFa - it would be harder
> to do that with HTMLWG/non-RDFa-related e-mails filling up our inboxes.
> Some of us have the time to keep up with 3-4 WGs, others don't.
>
>> The prevailing feeling in PHP land at the
>> time was that if people screw up, that's what CVS is for.  I'd like to
>> see a little more of that attitude here.
>
> What do you mean by "here"?
>
>> Some people will succeed, some
>> will fail, but I would much rather have people try and fail than to tell
>> people that they aren't allowed to try.
>
> Good - that sounds healthy. I believe that most of the RDFa community
> wants that as well.
>
>> Tying this back into HTML... what the HTML WG needs is more individuals,
>> and in particular, individuals who are willing to do the work (be it
>> writing bug reports to writing spec text to writing test cases to
>> whatever).
>
> Sure, that's what every WG needs more of - HTML WG is not alone in that
> need.
>
>> It doesn't need more labels.  And in particular, when Mark
>> participates in the HTML working group he does so as a member of the
>> HTML working group.  Any other labels he may also have are irrelevant in
>> the context of that work.
>>
>> I'll close with saying that there are valid reasons to have an IG.  I
>> merely submit that "perhaps", /can/, and "us" aren't a part of those
>> reasons.
>
> I agree, those words (perhaps, can, and us), used in the way you defined
> them, aren't good reasons to have a separate RDFa IG. My point is that I
> don't think that I was defining them as you were. I hope the text above
> clarifies that position.
>
> This conversation is getting very meta - by focusing on single words
> used in paragraphs, I feel that we're moving away from discussing the
> requirements of an RDFa IG. I don't know if that option is completely
> undesirable to you at this point, or if the text above clarified what I
> was proposing to make it a viable path forward?

We are making progress.

Indeed, let's talk *very* concretely.

What work products are we talking about?  At the present time, there is
a W3C Recommendation entitled "RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing".
For the sake of discussion, I'll assume for the moment that there is
interest in producing documents entitled "RDFa in HTML: Syntax and
Processing" and "RDFa in SVG: Syntax and Processing".  If you would
prefer a different assumption (examples: embed RDFa directly in the
HTML5 document, have a combined HTML+SVG document, etc).  Please
describe what you would like to see.

Who would work on these documents?  For the moment, I'll assume that the
four people listed as authors of "RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing"
are interested.  Of course, a name or two may end up being added or
removed, and there probably is at least an order of magnitude of
additional interested parties who would like to contribute.

Is there any reason why these individuals couldn't join both the HTML
and SVG working groups?  None that I'm aware of.  In fact, I'm
positively encouraging you to do so.

Given the obvious overlap between "RDFa in HTML" and "RDFa in SVG", does
it make sense for the authors to coordinate or liaise?  Absolutely.
Could the coordination efforts themselves alone merit a mailing list, a
telecon, and a tracker?  Absolutely.

If I'm OK with a mailing list, a telecon, and a tracker, what am I
concerned about?  I'm concerned about the creation of a separate formal
group which has either owns "RDFa in HTML" or is responsible for
producing /formal/ advice over the same.  In theory, such could work.
In other contexts, it may even work well.  In this context, with this
history, I don't think it would.

Ben will confirm then when we met in March, I suggested that the best
course of action was to simply produce a "RDFa in HTML" document, and
that I have taken every opportunity I can find to reinforce that notion.
  In the ASF, you will often hear the term JFDI in situations like
these.  If you are nof familiar with that term, I'll leave it up to your
imagination what the letters stand for.

You, Ben, and Steven are welcome to join the HTML Working Group[1], and
I'm confident that Doug feels similarly about the SVG Working Group[2].
  And we both will work with W3C staff to ensure that the necessary
infrastructure (telecons, mailing lists, access to CVS, etc.) are in
place for you to do this work.

My recommendation is that you spend your limited time and energy on
that, and less on creating ephemeral organizational structures which
will perpetuate rather than resolve divisions.

- Sam Ruby

> -- manu

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=40318&public=1
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=19480&public=1

[Shane McCarron]

Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> Ben will confirm then when we met in March, I suggested that the best
> course of action was to simply produce a "RDFa in HTML" document, and
> that I have taken every opportunity I can find to reinforce that
> notion.  In the ASF, you will often hear the term JFDI in situations
> like these.  If you are nof familiar with that term, I'll leave it up
> to your imagination what the letters stand for.
All this aside, you will note that Ben conveyed your request to the
group, and I and others produced a draft of such a document.  However,
at the time, we were told and believed that we could not produce such a
document under the auspices of the W3C because we are not chartered to
do so (the existing task force is under the SemWeb and XHTML 2
Activities).  That's why the document is in "ApTest" space [1] today.  
The document is being worked on, it has tests, it has implementations,
it will have an implementation report, etc.  We have received comments,
we have an issue repository [2], and we are working through those issues.

I would be pleased to release copyright on this document to the W3C once
someone in management there tells me there is a home for it.  Until
then, ApTest is more than willing to support the activity.  Basically,
and I am sure you agree with me here Sam, I refuse to let bureaucracy
get in the way of progress.


[1] http://www.aptest.com/standards/rdfa-html
[2] http://rdfa.info/wiki/Rdfa-in-html-issues

--
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: [phone] x120
Managing Director                            Fax: [phone]
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@...

[rubys]

Shane McCarron wrote:
>
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>> Ben will confirm then when we met in March, I suggested that the best
>> course of action was to simply produce a "RDFa in HTML" document, and
>> that I have taken every opportunity I can find to reinforce that
>> notion.  In the ASF, you will often hear the term JFDI in situations
>> like these.  If you are nof familiar with that term, I'll leave it up
>> to your imagination what the letters stand for.
 >
> All this aside, you will note that Ben conveyed your request to the
> group, and I and others produced a draft of such a document.  However,
> at the time, we were told and believed that we could not produce such a
> document under the auspices of the W3C because we are not chartered to
> do so (the existing task force is under the SemWeb and XHTML 2
> Activities).  That's why the document is in "ApTest" space [1] today.  
> The document is being worked on, it has tests, it has implementations,
> it will have an implementation report, etc.  We have received comments,
> we have an issue repository [2], and we are working through those issues.

Re: "we were told"... if you can tell me who told you that, I will
follow up... and resolve the issue.

> I would be pleased to release copyright on this document to the W3C once
> someone in management there tells me there is a home for it.  Until
> then, ApTest is more than willing to support the activity.  Basically,
> and I am sure you agree with me here Sam, I refuse to let bureaucracy
> get in the way of progress.

Do I qualify as "in management"?  If so, I am saying that if you join
the HTML Working Group and request access to CVS, Mike Smith will work
with you to make it happen (details including ssh keys and copyright).

If you need something more than that, let me know, and I will flatten
those issues too.

I honestly don't believe that there is a charter issue here.  Ian, for
example, clearly believes that the /use cases/ which support RDFa are in
scope, he just happens to believe that he has come up with a "superior"
design for addressing those use cases.  I happen to believe that common
failing of a standards bodies (and not just the W3C, though it clearly
has happened here) is to produce a lot of "superior" designs and in the
process lost sight of their constituencies and therefore have not gotten
widely deployed.

I for one would rather that the HTML WG produce something worthy of
loving parody by Clay Shirky[3].

- Sam Ruby

> [1] http://www.aptest.com/standards/rdfa-html
> [2] http://rdfa.info/wiki/Rdfa-in-html-issues

[3] http://www.shirky.com/writings/evolve.html

[Shane McCarron]

Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> Re: "we were told"... if you can tell me who told you that, I will
> follow up... and resolve the issue.
Sure.  It was Ralph, Steven, Ben, and me.  We all agree that the current
task force cannot produce rec-track documents that involve HTML because
we are not chartered to work on HTML.  YOUR committee can certainly
produce such documents.  Thanks for inviting us to work with your group
and directly edit your spec.  I am sure some of us will take you up on
that as time permits.
>
>> I would be pleased to release copyright on this document to the W3C
>> once someone in management there tells me there is a home for it.  
>> Until then, ApTest is more than willing to support the activity.  
>> Basically, and I am sure you agree with me here Sam, I refuse to let
>> bureaucracy get in the way of progress.
>
> Do I qualify as "in management"?  
See above, but no, you do not.  The W3C Director and the Advisory
Committee approve charters, and the charter of the RDFa Task Force is
within the remit of two other W3C groups whose charters have either
expired or are expiring.  Those charters are not going to be expanded to
encompass HTML4 nor HTML5 - at least, it seems pretty unlikely to me.  I
imagine what *could* happen from a management perspective is that the
HTML Working Group could also join the party - becoming an additional
sponsor of the RDFa Task Force.  However, given the HTML Working Group's
focus on producing a single specification rather than multiple specs
that inter-relate, it seems to make more sense (to that group) that
edits are just made directly on the monolithic HTML5 draft.  As I
mentioned above, I am sure some of us will take you up on that offer.

Thanks again!

--
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: [phone] x120
Managing Director                            Fax: [phone]
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@...

[rubys]

Shane McCarron wrote:

>
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>> Re: "we were told"... if you can tell me who told you that, I will
>> follow up... and resolve the issue.
> Sure.  It was Ralph, Steven, Ben, and me.  We all agree that the current
> task force cannot produce rec-track documents that involve HTML because
> we are not chartered to work on HTML.  YOUR committee can certainly
> produce such documents.  Thanks for inviting us to work with your group
> and directly edit your spec.  I am sure some of us will take you up on
> that as time permits.

OK I think we are in sync.  I believe that "we were told and believed
that we could not produce such a document under the auspices of the W3C"
to be a false statement (though to see it as such requires thinking
outside of the box), and I accept that "the existing task force is under
the SemWeb and XHTML 2 Activities" was "not chartered to do so" (a.k.a.
"the box")

>>> I would be pleased to release copyright on this document to the W3C
>>> once someone in management there tells me there is a home for it.  
>>> Until then, ApTest is more than willing to support the activity.  
>>> Basically, and I am sure you agree with me here Sam, I refuse to let
>>> bureaucracy get in the way of progress.
>>
>> Do I qualify as "in management"?  
> See above, but no, you do not.  The W3C Director and the Advisory
> Committee approve charters, and the charter of the RDFa Task Force is
> within the remit of two other W3C groups whose charters have either
> expired or are expiring.  Those charters are not going to be expanded to
> encompass HTML4 nor HTML5 - at least, it seems pretty unlikely to me.  I
> imagine what *could* happen from a management perspective is that the
> HTML Working Group could also join the party - becoming an additional
> sponsor of the RDFa Task Force.  However, given the HTML Working Group's
> focus on producing a single specification rather than multiple specs
> that inter-relate, it seems to make more sense (to that group) that
> edits are just made directly on the monolithic HTML5 draft.  As I
> mentioned above, I am sure some of us will take you up on that offer.

I will pursue with Mike Smith, Phillipe Le Hegaret and Tim Berners-Lee
and will report back.

> Thanks again!

- Sam Ruby

P.S.  You are welcome to produce an update to a "monolithic" HTML5
draft, but are not constrained to do so.

[Manu Sporny]

Sam Ruby wrote:
> P.S.  You are welcome to produce an update to a "monolithic" HTML5
> draft, but are not constrained to do so.

I will be doing exactly that this coming weekend. Thanks for the
opportunity to do so, Sam.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/

[rubys]

Sam Ruby wrote:

> Shane McCarron wrote:
>>
>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
>>> Re: "we were told"... if you can tell me who told you that, I will
>>> follow up... and resolve the issue.
>> Sure.  It was Ralph, Steven, Ben, and me.  We all agree that the
>> current task force cannot produce rec-track documents that involve
>> HTML because we are not chartered to work on HTML.  YOUR committee can
>> certainly produce such documents.  Thanks for inviting us to work with
>> your group and directly edit your spec.  I am sure some of us will
>> take you up on that as time permits.
>
> OK I think we are in sync.  I believe that "we were told and believed
> that we could not produce such a document under the auspices of the W3C"
> to be a false statement (though to see it as such requires thinking
> outside of the box), and I accept that "the existing task force is under
> the SemWeb and XHTML 2 Activities" was "not chartered to do so" (a.k.a.
> "the box")

Oops: typo.  I did not intend my excerpt to include "we were told and
believed that".

- Sam Ruby

[Ian Hickson]

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Manu Sporny wrote:

> Ian Hickson wrote:
> >>>> Therein lies the problem. We want to work on RDFa and address real
> >>>> use cases without being dependent on Ian.
> >>> Which use cases does microdata not address?
> >> The problems with microdata have been addressed before by others, I'm
> >> not going to spend the time going into them yet again.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any use cases that microdata doesn't handle. There
> > have been issues raised, but none are use cases that aren't addressed.
> > Since you claimed the problem was to do with addressing "real use
> > cases", if there really are some, I would be very grateful if you
> > could elaborate on what they are.
>
> Here are a couple of links to remind all of us about prior conversations
> we've had related to microdata and not addressing certain technical
> issues as well certain stated use cases.

Sorry, I should have said that I'm not aware of any use cases that RDFa
handles that microdata doesn't handle. (Obviously, there's lots of stuff
microdata doesn't handle, like finding world peace or curing cancer.)


> Eduard: "microdata is even more restricted: it leaves out the cases that
> RDFa leaves out, but it also leaves out some cases that RDFa was able to
> handle."
> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019749.html

Unfortunately Eduard did not, to my knowledge, list those use cases.


> Kristof: "Being unable to deal with all use cases sometimes is a
> feature."
> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019807.html

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this. Surely nobody disagrees
with this statement.


> Ian: "I couldn't find a good solution to this problem."
> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019839.html

RDFa has the same problems microdata has in terms of addressing this
use case. If you think RDFa addresses this use case adequately, then so
does microdata; personally, I don't think RDFa does address this use case
adequately, and I am not aware of a good solution.


> Ian: "Use cases for which I haven't been able to find solutions"
> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019886.html

RDFa doesn't address any of those any better than microdata either.

> > I [do not] think it's fair to cast the concerns that have been raised
> > regarding RDFa as dubious, and nor am I aware of any serious effort to
> > actually fix all the problems
>
> The concerns had been documented back in May 2009:
>
> http://rdfa.info/wiki/rdfa-in-html-issues
>
> and we are working to fix the issues:
>
> http://rdfa.info/wiki/rdfa-in-html-issues#RDFa_Task_Force_Discussion_Order
> http://rdfa.info/wiki/RDFa_Profiles

That's great!

I am concerned that in general the solutions are doing nothing but making
RDFa more complex; one of the main issues that I think already harms RDFa
is its complexity. There is always a balance to be struck between solving
every problem and being simple enough that people actually use the
solution widely. Currently, I really feel RDFa is far to the complex side.
I don't see this as one of the problems listed in the list above. I feel
simplicity is one of microdata's biggest strengths. (Another is its tight
integration with features such as the JS drag-and-drop model.)

--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

[rubys]

Sam Ruby wrote:

>
> I believe we need to work together.  If you are not willing to do that
> -- and furthermore, if "That's the point of the RDFa IG" --  then lets
> make this interesting.  I, Sam Ruby, do hereby publicly oppose the
> formation of such an IG.  I believe that the W3C has for too long
> operated in a dysfunctional manner by NOT addressing issues head on, and
> instead facilitating confusion[1] by creating overlapping groups with
> unclear boundaries and missions, and in this case with the apparent
> expressed purpose of avoiding addressing the underlying issue.
>
> I believe that Mike and I have expressed the way we would like to see
> things progress:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0132.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0017.html 
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0018.html 
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0019.html 

With Manu's publishing of the first public Editors Draft of RDFa for
HTML5[1], my concerns have been fully addressed and now I support the
formation of an RDFa IG, should there still be a desire for there to be one.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/07/13/html5rdfa/