Forwarding from Larry Masinter...
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 09:35:35PM -0800, Larry Masinter wrote:
> Sender: Larry Masinter <[log in to unmask]>
> From: "Larry Masinter" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "'Thomas Baker'" <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: <[log in to unmask]>,
> <[log in to unmask]>,
> <[log in to unmask]>,
> "DCMI Architecture" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: RE: DC-HTML and HTML5 - a clarification and position - *DRAFT*
> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:35:35 -0800
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="us-ascii"
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
>
> I know I initiated this request, but I'd like to see
> if I can make the request more specific:
>
> If you're sending a comment to the HTML working group,
> I think it would be most productive to comment on the
> actual documents now being moved forward, including
> both Microdata and HTML+RDFa:
>
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/
>
> If you like them fine as they are, that's great,
> but probably also doesn't need a lot of discussion.
>
> If there are some specific changes or technical issues
> you have with the document, then submitting that in
> terms of "what you think is wrong" also be
> useful.
>
> A general kind of architectural review might be useful
> for the DCMI community, but the kind of general
> statements below are going to get lost in the noise.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Baker [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Baker
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 8:58 AM
> To: DCMI Architecture
> Cc: [log in to unmask]; Larry Masinter; [log in to unmask];
> [log in to unmask]
> Subject: DC-HTML and HTML5 - a clarification and position - *DRAFT*
>
> Dear all,
>
> The W3C HTML Working Group is developing a new version of HTML,
> and proposals are on the table with implications for whether
> DCMI would be able to apply solutions it has promoted for use
> with HTML4 and XHTML in a new HTML5 environment [1].
>
> The following statement, which puts DCMI's HTML-related work
> into an historical context and articulates a position on the
> issues as we currently understand them, is signed by the authors
> of DCMI's current HTML-related specifications and by the
> co-moderators of the DCMI Architecture Forum.
>
> I am posting this message now to dc-architecture in order to
> invite a close reading by interested members of this forum and
> would particularly appreciate quick feedback if anyone spots
> errors of fact.
>
> Discussion of this issue has recently come thick and fast, with
> new developments and contributions not only on the mailing list
> of the W3C HTML working group [2,3], but also the mailing lists
> of the W3C Linking Open Data project [4,5,6,7] many of which
> have been Cc'd to the mailing list of the W3C Semantic Web
> Interest Group [e.g., 8].
>
> Unless anyone raises red flags, I plan to submit this post early
> next week to all of the relevant mailing lists. Recipients Cc'd
> to this message are invited to join the dc-architecture list [9]
> if they wish to respond to the dc-architecture group as a whole.
>
> Many thanks,
> Tom Baker
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0573.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0683.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0794.html
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2010Feb/0207.html
> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2010Feb/0215.html
> [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2010Feb/0218.html
> [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2010Feb/0220.html
> [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Feb/0214.html
> [9] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/dc-architecture.html
>
> --------------------
> [Text to be posted:]
>
> Over the years, DCMI has developed several specifications
> of relevance to the discussions around HTML5:
> -- RFC 2731 of 1999 ("Encoding Dublin Core Metadata in HTML") [1],
> now obsoleted by RFC 5791 ("RFC 2731 Is Obsolete") of 2010 [2].
> -- "Expressing Dublin Core in HTML/XHTML meta and link elements" of
> 2003 [3],
> currently a "superseded recommended" as explained in [4].
> -- "Expressing Dublin Core metadata using HTML/XHTML meta and link
> elements" (a.k.a. DC-HTML) of 2008 [5], currently a DCMI
> Recommendation.
>
> The 2008 DC-HTML Recommendation makes use of the XHTML meta data
> profile, which is associated with a Profile Transformation as
> defined by GRDDL.
>
> DCMI acknowledges that all technology is transitional, and that,
> in particular, syntax for embedding metadata in HTML is likely
> to evolve significantly over the next few years.
>
> The intention of DCMI is to help metadata implementers use
> metadata effectively in the Web environment. While
> DCMI-specific solutions have been developed over the years to
> meet pressing needs, DCMI's intention is not to promote
> syntactic solutions that are specific to "Dublin Core", but
> rather to enable the use of Dublin Core terms in metadata that
> draws on other compatible namespaces, such as FOAF, in the
> context of application profiles.
>
> Increasingly, such syntax solutions are being developed outside
> of DCMI. Since the finalization of RDFa as a W3C Recommendation
> in 2008, DCMI also promotes RDFa for use in "Dublin Core"
> metadata as an alternative to DC-HTML/2008.
>
> In this spirit, DCMI does not consider itself to be committed
> to the profile attribute in a way that would preclude migration
> to alternative mechanisms in HTML5. DCMI is open to any forms of
> markup that will meet the needs of the Dublin Core community.
>
> In our understanding, the need of the Dublin Core community is
> for a mechanism to encode RDF triples using <meta> and <link>
> elements which:
>
> -- supports both literal and URI objects
> -- includes an abbreviation mechanism for property URIs, not
> just for property URIs owned by DCMI, but for property URIs
> generally.
>
> The 2008 DC-HTML specification provides such a mechanism. RDFa
> provides such a mechanism through CURIEs. If RDFa were
> available in HTML5, DCMI would therefore be happy to promote its
> use with HTML5.
>
> If the new microdata proposal were to provide a mechanism for
> achieving the same effect, then DCMI would be happy to promote
> its use as well. Based on an imperfect understanding of the
> proposal on the table, DCMI does have some concern that
> requiring the use of full URIs for qualifying the provenance of
> properties sets a high bar for implementers, who could resort to
> pragmatic solutions that would depend on out-of-band information
> or other forms of "context" to relate the properties used
> specifically to DCMI metadata terms and could therefore, in
> practice, introduce ambiguity about the precise terms referenced.
>
> DCMI is interested in promoting any generic, standards-based
> solutions which ensure that its properties are precisely
> identified and can be referenced and used without ambiguity.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tom Baker (CIO of DCMI), Pete Johnston, Mikael Nilsson, Andy Powell
> on behalf of DCMI
>
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2731
> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5791
> [3] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcq-html/
> [4] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-html-notes/
> [5] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-html/
> [6] http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-ds-xml/
>
> --
> Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
>
--
Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|