Re: [office-metadata] [Fwd: Re: ODF and semantic web]

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

We'll probably get asked this question
over and over again.  So do we have a good list of reasons why we
cannot use the generic RDFa serialization?  Is it because it is un-doable
hard?  Or is it that the incremental complexity is much greater than
the incremental benefit?  Is this something that could be solved once,
say in the form of an open source library, and then reused everywhere,
so the cost/complexity issue is not a problem?

-Rob

___________________________

Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group

email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/

"Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com>

10/15/2007 09:08 AM

To	office-metadata <office-metadata@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	[office-metadata] [Fwd: Re: ODF and semantic web]

 From the Chair of the SemWeb group at the W3C.

I'm not really sure there's much we can do. I suppose we could:

1. make sure the attribute names align
2. suggest they create a namespaced version of their's that we *could*
use?

Anything else?

Bruce

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: ODF and semantic web
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:21:25 +0200
From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Organization: World Wide Web Consortium
To: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>,      
          Bruce D'Arcus 
<bdarcus@gmail.com>,            
    Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>,  
              W3C RDFa
task 
force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
References: <4710D6BC.4080705@gmail.com> 
<a707f8300710140338g650a0820m8d1df28db4917b2d@mail.gmail.com> 
<47126746.2050200@torrez.us>

Elias, Mark, Bruce, & al

First of all: I think Elias is right. 'Our' (if one can define this
'our', which is not always easy) first reaction should be (and believe
me, is!): yey! Having _some_ syntax to store RDF metadata in ODF _is_
major and good news. In some ways, _what_ the exact serialization syntax
is remains of a secondary importance as long as it is clearly defined
and transformable (via GRDDL or anything else, although GRDDL comes to
one's mind first) into other formats. So yes, yey!:-)

As for Mark's concerns: yes, if RDFa could be used, that would be even
better, because it would reduce the number of overlapping serializations
and would therefore help in a quicker integration of ODF metadata into
the SW world. It would be good _if_ it is possible and meets the
constraints that ODF has. At this point, the obvious question and
comment is: what can be done to help improve this? There are some
(probably solvable) technical issues; and there are also 'social', ie,
the 'how to do it?', 'where and how to comment?' part. I think Elias'
and Bruce's advise on that would be really welcome. We can then try to
take it from there...

Sincerely

Ivan

Elias Torres wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>> Hi Bruce,
>>
>>> I've mentioned this here before, but more on RDF-in-OpenDocument.
>>>
>>> <http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/10/odf-enters-semantic-web.html>
>>>
>>> The OpenOffice project is now starting to looking into implementing
it,
>>> so people here might be interested.
>>
>> I note that the attributes used in ODF are 'inspired' by RDFa
[1]--but
>> why not just incorporate RDFa as is?
> 
> First reason is because RDFa is still not finished, published,
> recommended etc. We are currently working on a XHTML 1.1 module and
that
> I know of there's no work in progress for a recommendation on how
to
> host RDFa in other XML languages. I understand that you have
> ideas/vision/plans, but just like every other standards group or task
> force, you can't depend on too many working drafts/vision/plan unless
> deadlines are of no concern. This is a very common practice at the
W3C
> as well, so I hope that's enough for you to understand why we couldn't
> embed RDFa as is.
> 
> Secondly, we are just getting to a point of good coverage of the issues
> that surround adding metadata to XHTML, but unfortunately, although
you
> might see very little differences between XHTML and any other XML
> vocabulary, there's a lot of things to both work out and build from
> scratch in some XML vocabularies where something as basic as the
> document location/hyperlink not being defined as it's the case for
ODF.
> 
> I think we are too critical when we make these statements especially
> when I indicated many times in our calls that I was involved in this
> work and I didn't hear anyone volunteering to help. For example, several
> times I went as far as asking you personally for suggestions in some
> aspects of the RDFa spec before it was even brought up to the RDFa
task
> force for sake of progress in the ODF metadata specification.
> Unfortunately, the task forces were working in parallel and it just
> wasn't feasible to combine both groups, learn each others requirements
> and deliver a single document. I wish things were as simple as me
> saying: hey guys let's use the RDFa spec from the W3C and put an
> OASIS/ODF rubber stamp on it and everyone just said: great, let's
do that.
> 
>>
>> It's especailly confusing for authors when this 'inpiration' seems
to
>> involve copying some RDFa attributes, but changing the names of
>> others. For example, @about is used, but @datatype has been renamed
to
>> @data-type!
> 
> I would first hope that there's no a problem with us getting
> inspiration/copying the RDFa attributes. It was a long and arduous
> process to get where we are today. Bruce and I put in a LOT of time
and
> patience until the group passed from storming to performing.
> Svante/Patrick put in an amazing effort with the documents (very similar
> to what you have done with the RDFa documents). We are now a
> happy/loving bunch and Bruce and I are grateful to our colleagues
for
> putting up enough with us to the point that they now share our vision
> for metadata in office applications. It really took a lot of listening
> on their part for us to share everything we thought was great about
the
> RDFa work. The ODF Metadata group was so much more welcoming to our
> perspective as opposed to other non-SW bred groups and us arguing
about
> 'dash' felt to me disrespectful, if not rude.
> 
>>
>> This lack of alignment is a shame, especially when the proponents
of
>> ODF are generally critical of the confusion that can be caused
by
>> companies and organisations pursuing alternate document formats.
There
>> is a fantastic opportunity here for creating tools and search
engines
>> that could leverage a 'standard' way of incorporating metadata
into
>> HTML, XHTML, ODF, and other mark-up languages. That opportunity
now
>> looks like it is going to be missed.
> 
> I'm not as intimate with the ODF organization, but I would not confuse
> this sub-committee/task force with the rest of the organization.
> Besides, I think the issues surrounding OOXML and ODF are orthogonal
to
> what you claim is happening in this 'divergence' of formats. Of course,
> I believe that there's a fantastic opportunity here for creating tools
> and blah blah into HTML, XHTML, ODF, etc. But please don't blame us
for
> the fact that not everyone in the world wants to adhere to our
> views/technology of the Semantic Web. I think that this 'standard'
way
> of thinking has hurt us more than helped to reach the goal. I totally
> disagree that one parser will  be capable to address the issues
of
> metadata in ODF vs HTML. I caught myself making those arguments to
later
> change my mind and understand that in the end it's just code that
gets
> written and overwritten every other day, but a consensus to work
> together as individuals and put our differences aside is much harder
to
> develop, no pun intended.
> 
> We were hoping to receive a warm welcome for the work we put into
the
> ODF Metadata for the purpose of advancing the Semantic Web, but as
> always, you can't please everyone. Fortunately, I still believe ODF
> Metadata + RDF/XML is making the case for extensibility, flexibility,
> linked data, openness and so on, independently of whether we used
the
> same parser or not. We need to keep examining ourselves in the likes
of
> Bijan [1] so we assess what are the real problems hindering progress
on
> the Web by our standards and do more showing/telling and
> implementation/adoption before rushing to standardizing. At least
I
> partially felt that way with ODF Metadata and towards the end of the
> first draft, I agreed that less was better given that this was the
first
> introduction of RDF to the ODF world. Look at Mozilla for example
and I
> hope that we start small and prove the value before forcing things
> without immediate benefits.
> 
> DISCLAIMER: At the risk of sounding schizo, here it goes. Mark, you
know
> we are cool and I'm not at all targeting everything towards you only
but
> to the larger community. We are colleagues, have been working together
> for a while now and share a lot in common when it comes to RDFa, but
I
> had been meaning to reply to Bijan's email and vent a little on some
of
> the issues surrounding many groups/technologies on the W3C and you
had
> to push me over the edge :D
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Oct/0039.html
> 
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> [1]
>> <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/25055/Metadata_22August2007.txt>
>>
>>
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf