See also: IRC log
Date: 27 October 2011
<noah> scribenick: Larry
no objections
RESOLUTION: Minutes of the 13th of October are approved http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/10/13-minutes
<ht> +1 to PSA visit
DKA: I'll send text relating to minimization
larry: No probs publishing the TAG status report as is
<Yves> definitely +1 to discuss with @stpeter
<jar> larry: Maybe swap mime&web with fragids (in status report)
Larry: swap "Fragment identifiers and Mime Types" and MIME and the Web
... In presentation at TPAC, "informing" => "asking for feedback"
... the main thing i want to make sure you say Noah is that we really want feedback about what we're doing and what we should be doing
and that you not only ask for questions, that you ask for feedback, complaints, kudos, encouragement, etc.
<jar> Noah, make suggested changes or not at your discretion
<noah> . RESOLUTION: TAG agrees to publication of TAG Status Report http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/sum10.html with call for feedback and Noah adoption changes receive in e-mail at his discretion
Larry: +1
<JeniT> +1
RESOLUTION: TAG agrees to publication of TAG Status Report http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/sum10.html with call for feedback and Noah adopting changes received in e-mail at his discretion
<DKA> +1
Larry: thank you for putting that together
<noah> ACTION-616?
<trackbot> ACTION-616 -- Noah Mendelsohn to contact Fred Hirsch to suggest joint TAG/DAP meeting at TPAC on REST vs. Javascript APIs -- due 2011-10-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/616
<noah> close ACTION-616
<trackbot> ACTION-616 Contact Fred Hirsch to suggest joint TAG/DAP meeting at TPAC on REST vs. Javascript APIs closed
Noah: Tried to contact SPDY group, no response, I won't try further to try to meet with them
yves: I can ping them again
((discussion of trying to meet with Raman))
noah: publishing & linking breakout has a session proposal
... Noah & Dan will be at breakout
Dan: someone has to defend the plenary breakout session, I'll do that but others encouraged to do so
... Will again try to catch up with Rigo about deep linking.
action-613?
<trackbot> ACTION-613 -- Daniel Appelquist to organize deep linking breakout at TPAC -- due 2011-10-06 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/613
Larry: i'd suggest scheduling agenda for the IETF items I mentioned (MIME issues, IRI issues, etc.) and scheduling that based on constraints or avialability of IETF/W3C liaison & IETF apps area director at TPAC.
noah: I want to come out of Friday at TPAC with an agreement to publish client-side storage.
... I have concerns about "context-sensitive URIs", and want to schedule that monday afternoon after Tim arrives.
ashok: Related topic: there are two client-side storage APIs that do similar things in different ways, should we say something.
Larry: I wonder if we should have TAG agenda time Friday to discuss items that came up during earlier the week?
<Ashok> +1
Larry: Will we have XML/HTML task force time?
... My priorities for TPAC/TAG time are to give priority to topics which advance better with people who are avilable.
<noah> ACTION: Larry to pull together plans for IETF<-> TAG coordination at TPAC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/27-tagmem-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-623 - Pull together plans for IETF<-> TAG coordination at TPAC [on Larry Masinter - due 2011-11-03].
<jar> . RESOLUTION: The TAG concurs with Henry Thompson's analysis of RDFa Core and FYN http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Oct/0068.html and its suggestion on wording.
<noah> ACTION-509?
<trackbot> ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due 2011-10-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509
<noah> E-mail from Henry: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Oct/0068.html
<noah> E-mail from Jonathan: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Oct/0039.html
henry: #1 ... wording should point people in the right direction ...
... #2 ... HTML5 removed all mention of RDFa, there is still a follow-your-nose problem ...
<noah> From Henry's email (at the end):
<noah> Per my argument above the media type argument is settled -- text/html is covered by HTML5's reference to RDFa (not currently there, but assuming that at least gets sorted) and other witting or unwitting uses are covered as described above.
<noah> That's the 2nd point.
HT: The first point is the proposed wording further back.
#1: ... we're proposing some wording ... esentially says: "you may wonder about the use of fragment ids, all we do is build graphs ..."
Larry: Wondering about the process by which the TAG proposes specific wording.
... I know that was necessary with HTML, is it in general good?
HT: In this case we've already started helping them with wording.
... the bottom line is that we already started down this path
... ... attempts to draw a line ....
JAR: I think this is an exception
<Zakim> noah, you wanted to say "always propose wording"
noah: Proposing wording doesn't just make it easier, it's "here is something that would satisfy me".
<noah> I would like to ask about:
<noah> "If I'm right, the answer is "(c) neither", on the grounds that RDFa introduces nothing new with respect to the use of fragment identifiers (that's already in RDF) or with respect to the _interpretation_ of fragment identifiers, since no RDFa attribute creates an anchor in the resource corresponding to its host document."
larry: distinguish between 'propose wording' and 'mandate wording'
nm: "since no RDFa attribute creates an anchor " -- what does that mean?
ht: was hard to describe what i meant
<noah> NM: What did you mean?
<JeniT> it doesn't give an id to an element
ht: What I meant was the only way in which RDFa could be implicated in its host language media types is if it creates anchors
larry: the text/html MIME type definition needs to explicitly allow RDFa in it and define meaning of fragment identifiers to point to RDFa meaning.
nm: ... in the particular case where it is self-referential... where the base name is the host document ....
... let's say the sample.rdf and there's a reference to sample.rdf#xxx
ht: we're dealing with html documents, not rdf documents
nm: RDFa spec says this doesn't refer to an anchor, it refers to a puppy dog
<ht> But the RDFa spec doesn't _say_ that, the RDF Concept does
<Zakim> Larry, you wanted to wonder whether media types have to explicitly add RDFa for RDFa to apply
NM: I'm still nervous that this is "squatting" on the space of fragment syntax that HTML itself could use to refer to anchors (or someting else) after all.
... Of course, if HTML does explicitly point to RDFa there's no issue.
... My problem is that the quoted text suggests that such explicit reference from the HTML media type registration isn't necessary.
<Zakim> jar, you wanted to remind regarding (1) FYN is not strictly required by 3986, it's a webarch thing (2) as HT says no webarch obligation for RDFa to say anything new to support FYN,
<noah> Right, but we have said that FYN is a very good thing, as set out in e.g. Self-describing Web
jar: spec or registration needs to say something about what the fragids mean, this isn't required in 3986?
<noah> So...are you all saying "RDFa doesn't need to say anything but HTML does." Fine, but you have to read to the very end to get that.
Larry: maybe it belongs in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-03
<noah> Henry -- please also read my comment in IRC before you go.
<jar> repeat: ACTION-509 is urgent. . RESOLUTION: The TAG concurs with Henry Thompson's analysis of RDFa Core and FYN http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Oct/0068.html and its suggestion on wording.
ht: I realize this is interesting an dimportant but not germain. The only point we're trying to settle is the "follow your nose" point; if it leads to a conflict....
<noah> I would like to highlight much more clearly that changes ARE needed to HTML.
<Zakim> Larry, you wanted to ask about appliction/xhtml+xml also
<jar> 3023bis will have to be compatible with xhtml+xml (which includes RDFa)
ht: I didn't realize that all mention of RDFa was gone from HTML
jar: see specific resolution proposal above
<noah> . RESOLUTION: The TAG concurs with Henry Thompson's analysis of RDFa Core and FYN http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Oct/0068.html and its suggestion on wording. The importance of FYN and the need for the HTML media type registration (and spec) to reference RDFa explicitly should be highlighted.
larry: right now fragment identifier definition is in the "Additional information" optional info
<Yves> well, and JS as well
<Noah> . RESOLUTION: The TAG concurs with Henry Thompson's analysis of RDFa Core and FYN http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Oct/0068.html and its suggestion on wording, except that the importance of FYN and the need for the HTML media type registration (and spec) to reference RDFa explicitly should be highlighted.
jar: I'd like to finish this today and send a message today, they'd really like to get to press
noah: i'm proposing there is a preamble... "we conclude for the reasons below that there is no need for the RDFa spec to change ..."
larry: shouldn't RDFa note that it only works if the media type registry for the enclosing type explicitly allows RDFa?
jar: I don't think we need to say anything to the working group.
noah: we should say what the broader ommunity needs to do here.
jar: your sentence about what needs to be highlighted ...
noah: I'd be willing to help ...
<Yves> note that this media type issue will always appear when rdf is mixed with rfc3023 type because of the original issue on barename clash (same for javascript)
<noah> . RESOLUTION: The TAG concurs with Henry Thompson's analysis of RDFa Core and FYN http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Oct/0068.html and its suggestion on wording, except that the importance of FYN and the need for the HTML media type registration (and spec) to reference RDFa explicitly should be highlighted in the cover e-mail.
<jar> say in resolution "highlighted in the email to the working group"?
<noah> . RESOLUTION: The TAG concurs with Henry Thompson's analysis of RDFa Core and FYN http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Oct/0068.html and its suggestion on wording. Also: the importance of FYN and the need for the HTML media type registration (and spec) to reference RDFa explicitly should be highlighted in the cover e-mail.
<noah> . RESOLUTION: The TAG concurs with Henry Thompson's analysis of RDFa Core and FYN http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Oct/0068.html and its suggestion on wording. Also: the importance of FYN and the need for the HTML media type registration (and spec), and the registrations for any other host languages, to reference RDFa explicitly should be highlighted in the cover e-mail.
<jar> larry: RDFa Core should be explicit about the need for ...
<noah> LM: RDFa core should point out the responsibility of each host format to explicitly reference RDFa in its media type registration.
<noah> Noah: RDFa core should point out the responsibility of each host format to directly or indirectly explicitly reference RDFa in its media type registration.
<noah> Noah: RDFa core should point out the responsibility of each host format to directly or indirectly reference RDFa in its media type registration.
larry: ... if RDFa is going to be useful with those media types
<noah> JAR: They'll want wording.
larry: is RDFa meeting at TPAC and can we talk with them about this?
<jar> They're not going to disagree, they'll just justifiably balk if we ask them to do more work.
<noah> ACTION-590?
<trackbot> ACTION-590 -- Noah Mendelsohn to follow up with Addison Phillips on Unicode normalization http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jun/0188.html -- due 2011-08-30 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/590
<noah> ACTION-590?
<trackbot> ACTION-590 -- Noah Mendelsohn to follow up with Addison Phillips on Unicode normalization http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jun/0188.html -- due 2011-08-30 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/590
<noah> ACTION-509?
<trackbot> ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due 2011-10-18 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509
<noah> ACTION-509 Due 2011-11-15
<trackbot> ACTION-509 Communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue due date now 2011-11-15
<JeniT> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Html-data-tf
Jeni: link to wiki page, there are some pages off of that, describing different things related to that
<JeniT> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Mapping_Microdata_to_RDF
jeni: that links to a draft spec relating that
... there are a number of areas where the mapping is hard, we've been exploring ways in which we can improve things without breaking things
... one way is to create a mapping which results in something which is ugly but which can be post-processed
... what i'm encouraging at the moment just to explore those issues, document the options, with a view toward informing any working group going forward
<JeniT> http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_Data_Improvements
jeni: the other things that have been going around the issues around microdata and RDF
... that link, for these we had a big discussion about microdata not supporting multiple item times from different vocabularies
... Hixie believes there aren't any use cases that require that
... that [language use in microdata] is still an open bug
... it doesn't support schema.org ... vocabulary ... different item types ...
<timbl> Here we are talking about language modifier on string values, I assume?
<JeniT> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14470
tim: Language tags on string values aren't supported in microdata
... e.g., JSON doesn't have language tags, add it after
jeni: there's an open bug, we'll see how it pans out
... some issues around RDFa and the definition of the 'rel' attribute
... the property attribute is much closer to itemprop
... 4 weeks to try to get something out before christmas, that's my plan
noah: anything particular at TPAC?
<Zakim> Larry, you wanted to ask about RDF -> microdata as more important workflow
jeni: it's really what WG members wanted to work on.
tim: has anyone written RDF -> RDFa ...
jeni: that's not a primary use case
<jar> Funny - I just asked that on twitter.
noah: formally adjourn
meeting adjourned
<noah> We are adjourned
<noah> TBL: I have been interested in doing a serializer: start with RDF, look up ontologies, do the tabulator thing, turn into HTML, annotate with RDFa
tim: wondering a serializer which would take RDF generate HTML from the data that was annotated with RDFa...
<noah> JT: People are doing some generation
<noah> TBL: I should look over the wiki page on mapping microdata to rdf?
<noah> TBL: What solution do they have for picking the URI for a vocabulary in the case where the original had those concatenated URIs
<noah> JT: ...ooops, missed something important about URIs for types....
<noah> JT: Short name properties.
<noah> TBL: They're specific to the type of the object?
<noah> JT: Yes.
<noah> TBL: is the URI for the short name formed by concating the short name with the URI for the type.
<noah> JT: There are several ways. See wiki page.
<timbl> on http://www.w3.org/wiki/Mapping_Microdata_to_RDF
<noah> JT: The one that works well for RDF heads is to take off the last bit from the type, then add the property name
<noah> I have to go. If we're going to scribe this unofficial part of the mtg, someone else will have to do it.
<noah> Tnx
<JeniT> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-data-tf/2011Oct/0202.html
<JeniT> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-data-tf/2011Oct/0204.html