Telecon Agenda - November 12, 2009, 1600 UTC
|
View:
New views
6 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
Telecon Agenda - November 12, 2009, 1600 UTC
by Manu Sporny
::
Rate this Message:
Hi all,
We have a telecon in 1.5 hours, let's try to get a game plan together on implementing an experimental @vocab extension for extending the list of reserved words. ========== Thursday, November 5th 2009 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge tel:+1.617.761.6200 conference code RDFA irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa Duration: 60 minutes Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim ========== Agenda: 1) Action Items http://www.w3.org/2009/11/05-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary 2) RDFa WG charter updates (short - 10 minutes) 3) @vocab discussion -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/ |
|
|
Re: Telecon Agenda - November 12, 2009, 1600 UTC
by Mark Birbeck-4
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Manu,
I'm afraid I still disagree with the priorities here, for the reasons explained at [1] and [2]. Whilst some kind of vocabulary extension is of course important, as far as I know the only substantial criticism that has been levelled at RDFa is its requirement to use CURIEs/prefix mappings, and so I think we should really put some effort into addressing that. Fixing this would be low-hanging fruit, for us. It simply requires us to agree on how we allow full URIs in @rel, @rev, @property, @typeof and @datatype. (I had a full proposal at [3], which seemed to be supported on the list. Toby had an issue with how my proposal related to existing eRDF content, using the example of "dc:creator" -- but this might be incorrect, because as far as I can see, eRDF uses dots not colons.) I realise that Hixie would prefer to have no prefix mappings at all in RDFa, but I think that horse has bolted. But I do think that providing support for full URIs, so that authors at least have the choice of whether to use prefixes or not, would go a long way towards answering his criticism. And it's not as if the feature isn't useful, either; when using small 'packets' of RDFa, such as on one or two elements, it's often more convenient to provide the complete URI, and not bother at all with prefix mappings. Regards, Mark [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0045.html> [2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0050.html> [3] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0062.html> -- Mark Birbeck, webBackplane mark.birbeck@... http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street, London, EC2A 4RR) On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@...> wrote: > Hi all, > > We have a telecon in 1.5 hours, let's try to get a game plan together on > implementing an experimental @vocab extension for extending the list of > reserved words. > > ========== > Thursday, November 5th 2009 > 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge > tel:+1.617.761.6200 conference code RDFA > irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa > Duration: 60 minutes > Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim > ========== > > Agenda: > > 1) Action Items > http://www.w3.org/2009/11/05-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary > > 2) RDFa WG charter updates (short - 10 minutes) > > 3) @vocab discussion > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) > President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard > http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/ > > |
|
|
Re: Telecon Agenda - November 12, 2009, 1600 UTC
by Shane McCarron
::
Rate this Message:
FWIW, I think I agree with Mark on this one. It is low hanging fruit.
Note that no matter what, changes like these are things that relate to a future version of RDFa, not to the current version. Mark Birbeck wrote: Hi Manu, I'm afraid I still disagree with the priorities here, for the reasons explained at [1] and [2]. Whilst some kind of vocabulary extension is of course important, as far as I know the only substantial criticism that has been levelled at RDFa is its requirement to use CURIEs/prefix mappings, and so I think we should really put some effort into addressing that. Fixing this would be low-hanging fruit, for us. It simply requires us to agree on how we allow full URIs in @rel, @rev, @property, @typeof and @datatype. (I had a full proposal at [3], which seemed to be supported on the list. Toby had an issue with how my proposal related to existing eRDF content, using the example of "dc:creator" -- but this might be incorrect, because as far as I can see, eRDF uses dots not colons.) I realise that Hixie would prefer to have no prefix mappings at all in RDFa, but I think that horse has bolted. But I do think that providing support for full URIs, so that authors at least have the choice of whether to use prefixes or not, would go a long way towards answering his criticism. And it's not as if the feature isn't useful, either; when using small 'packets' of RDFa, such as on one or two elements, it's often more convenient to provide the complete URI, and not bother at all with prefix mappings. Regards, Mark [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0045.html> [2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0050.html> [3] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0062.html> -- Mark Birbeck, webBackplane mark.birbeck@... http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street, London, EC2A 4RR) On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Manu Sporny msporny@... wrote:Hi all, We have a telecon in 1.5 hours, let's try to get a game plan together on implementing an experimental @vocab extension for extending the list of reserved words. ========== Thursday, November 5th 2009 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge tel:+1.617.761.6200 conference code RDFA irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa Duration: 60 minutes Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim ========== Agenda: 1) Action Items http://www.w3.org/2009/11/05-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary 2) RDFa WG charter updates (short - 10 minutes) 3) @vocab discussion -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/ -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@... |
|
|
Re: Telecon Agenda - November 12, 2009, 1600 UTC
by Manu Sporny
::
Rate this Message:
Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Whilst some kind of vocabulary extension is of course important, as > far as I know the only substantial criticism that has been levelled at > RDFa is its requirement to use CURIEs/prefix mappings, and so I think > we should really put some effort into addressing that. > > Fixing this would be low-hanging fruit, for us. Sounds good ... revised agenda: ========== Thursday, November 12th 2009 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge tel:+1.617.761.6200 conference code RDFA irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa Duration: 60 minutes Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim ========== Agenda: 1) Action Items http://www.w3.org/2009/11/05-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary 2) RDFa WG charter updates (short - 10 minutes) 3) URIs in @rel, @rev, @property, @typeof and @datatype -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/ |
|
|
Re: Telecon Agenda - November 12, 2009, 1600 UTC
by Shane McCarron
::
Rate this Message:
Quick follow up. With regard to Mark's proposal at [1]:
PROPOSAL
So to bring everything together, the proposal is:
(a) RDFa should add support for URIs in attributes that currently only
support CURIEs;
(b) authors should be encouraged to use safe-CURIEs in those
attributes;
(c) but since ordinary CURIEs may still be used, we should differentiate
by saying that anything appearing before a colon, that is not a
mapped prefix, is a protocol.
I disagree with (b). I don't think there is any need for this. If
the processing rules are handling this, then in these contexts there is
no need to use a safe curie. On the other hand, the TAG will have a
cow if we permit URIs and CURIEs in the same place. That was their
principle objection to the CURIE spec. How do we overcome that hurdle? [1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0062.html Shane McCarron wrote: FWIW, I think I agree with Mark on this one. It is low hanging fruit. -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@... |
|
|
Re: Telecon Agenda - November 12, 2009, 1600 UTC
by Mark Birbeck-4
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Shane,
Fair point. And on re-reading the thread from back in July, I see that Ivan makes the same observation, which immediately doubles the number of people holding your view. :) Regards, Mark On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@...> wrote: > Quick follow up. With regard to Mark's proposal at [1]: > > PROPOSAL > > So to bring everything together, the proposal is: > > (a) RDFa should add support for URIs in attributes that currently only > support CURIEs; > > (b) authors should be encouraged to use safe-CURIEs in those > attributes; > > (c) but since ordinary CURIEs may still be used, we should differentiate > by saying that anything appearing before a colon, that is not a > mapped prefix, is a protocol. > > I disagree with (b). I don't think there is any need for this. If the > processing rules are handling this, then in these contexts there is no need > to use a safe curie. On the other hand, the TAG will have a cow if we > permit URIs and CURIEs in the same place. That was their principle > objection to the CURIE spec. How do we overcome that hurdle? > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0062.html > > > Shane McCarron wrote: > > FWIW, I think I agree with Mark on this one. It is low hanging fruit. > > Note that no matter what, changes like these are things that relate to a > future version of RDFa, not to the current version. > > Mark Birbeck wrote: > > Hi Manu, > > I'm afraid I still disagree with the priorities here, for the reasons > explained at [1] and [2]. > > Whilst some kind of vocabulary extension is of course important, as > far as I know the only substantial criticism that has been levelled at > RDFa is its requirement to use CURIEs/prefix mappings, and so I think > we should really put some effort into addressing that. > > Fixing this would be low-hanging fruit, for us. > > It simply requires us to agree on how we allow full URIs in @rel, > @rev, @property, @typeof and @datatype. > > (I had a full proposal at [3], which seemed to be supported on the > list. Toby had an issue with how my proposal related to existing eRDF > content, using the example of "dc:creator" -- but this might be > incorrect, because as far as I can see, eRDF uses dots not colons.) > > I realise that Hixie would prefer to have no prefix mappings at all in > RDFa, but I think that horse has bolted. > > But I do think that providing support for full URIs, so that authors > at least have the choice of whether to use prefixes or not, would go a > long way towards answering his criticism. > > And it's not as if the feature isn't useful, either; when using small > 'packets' of RDFa, such as on one or two elements, it's often more > convenient to provide the complete URI, and not bother at all with > prefix mappings. > > Regards, > > Mark > > [1] > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0045.html> > [2] > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0050.html> > [3] > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0062.html> > > -- > Mark Birbeck, webBackplane > > mark.birbeck@... > > http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck > > webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number > 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street, > London, EC2A 4RR) > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@...> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > We have a telecon in 1.5 hours, let's try to get a game plan together on > implementing an experimental @vocab extension for extending the list of > reserved words. > > ========== > Thursday, November 5th 2009 > 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge > tel:+1.617.761.6200 conference code RDFA > irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa > Duration: 60 minutes > Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim > ========== > > Agenda: > > 1) Action Items > http://www.w3.org/2009/11/05-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary > > 2) RDFa WG charter updates (short - 10 minutes) > > 3) @vocab discussion > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) > President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard > http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/ > > > > > > > -- > Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 > Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 > ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@... > > > > -- > Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 > Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 > ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@... > > |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
