12:55:27 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #swbp
12:55:47 <Ralph> Meeting: SWBPD RDF-in-HTML Task Force
12:58:41 <Zakim> SW_BPD(xhtml)9:00AM has now started
12:58:48 <Zakim> +Ralph
12:59:17 <benadida> benadida has joined #swbp
12:59:46 <Zakim> + +1.441.962.aaaa
12:59:57 <benadida> about to call in
13:00:00 <danbri> danbri has joined #swbp
13:00:07 <Ralph> zakim, aaaa is Nick_Gibbins
13:00:07 <Zakim> +Nick_Gibbins; got it
13:00:10 <danbri> zakim, dial danbri-home
13:00:10 <Zakim> ok, danbri; the call is being made
13:01:50 <Zakim> +Ben_Adida
13:04:04 <Zakim> +Danbri
13:04:29 <danbri> 1997-era metadata syntax discussion, http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue12/metadata/
13:04:42 <Ralph> Chair: Ben Adida
13:04:45 <danbri> pre-history re the HTML WG revisions to <link>, <meta>
13:04:45 <Ralph> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Aug/att-0000/2004-08-04-agenda.html__charset_ISO-8859-1
13:05:42 <Zakim> +David_Wood
13:06:21 <Zakim> +David_Wood|Tom_Adams
13:06:38 <Ralph> zakim, David_Wood|Tom_Adams is Tom_Adams
13:06:38 <Zakim> sorry, Ralph, I do not recognize a party named 'David_Wood|Tom_Adams'
13:06:42 <TomAdams> TomAdams has joined #swbp
13:07:02 <danbri> ben: goal for meeting is common direction...
13:07:05 <danbri> ...not bite off too much
13:07:07 <Ralph> zakim, David_WoodTom_Adams is Tom_Adams
13:07:07 <Zakim> +Tom_Adams; got it
13:07:12 <danbri> ...seems xhtml wg been doing fair bit of work
13:07:26 <danbri> ...if in a couple weeks we conclude 'lets default to their recommendations', that could be a fine outcome if all agree
13:07:34 <danbri> ...hope we can get collab w/ html wg
13:08:09 <danbri_scribe> ralph: i think its important that we put some effort into doing some kind of formal review of the HTML July22 draft
13:08:20 <danbri_scribe> ...and give a formal response from BP WG of some kind
13:08:33 <nmg> nmg has joined #swbp
13:08:48 <danbri_scribe> ralph: they deserve, fro mthe sw community, some feedback on that
13:09:16 <danbri_scribe> david(?): what form should feedback take
13:09:24 <danbri_scribe> (sorry not recognising all voices yet)
13:09:36 <danbri_scribe> ralph: see http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722/ ...anybody welcome to send individual comments
13:10:02 <danbri_scribe> ....but i think the comments from this wg will carry more weight if they come as a msg 'from the group' (chair(s) and/or TF leader)
13:10:08 <danbri_scribe> ...if it carried wg consensus
13:10:16 <danbri_scribe> ...we're still working out exactly how BP TFs operate
13:10:41 <danbri_scribe> ...my viewpoint is that this group here, and future telecons, will propose a response to our wg, ...
13:10:56 <danbri_scribe> ...and the wg will review it quicklyish and then we'll send it to the HTML WG as our WG's response
13:11:06 <danbri_scribe> ?: sounds good
13:11:13 <danbri_scribe> ralph: similar process to notes
13:11:28 <danbri_scribe> ben: addressed 1 item on agenda, re dependencies
13:11:38 <Ralph> rrsagent, please make logs world-visible
13:12:20 <danbri_scribe> ralph: we should note that we expect Ben to coord a review
13:12:30 <danbri_scribe> ...but actions are on individuals to get reviews done
13:12:37 <danbri_scribe> q+ to ask timescale for reviews
13:12:49 <danbri_scribe> ben: re requirements
13:13:55 <Ralph> DamBri: Dublin Core has had requirements; posted an old link from 1997
13:14:04 <Ralph> ... DC has been frustrated with the old META restrictions
13:14:26 <Ralph> ... want, e.g. to be able to supply phone numbers for authors
13:14:58 <Ralph> ... RDF WG proposed rel="meta", only recently has that been put into an HTML spec
13:15:00 <dom> dom has joined #swbp
13:15:08 <danbri_scribe> ben: one of the big issues that came up when discussing w/ Mark..
13:15:17 <danbri_scribe> ...was whether xhtml should allow for full expression of rdf
13:15:22 <Ralph> Ralph has changed the topic to: XHTML Task Force meeting: 4 Aug 1300 UTC; Zakim conf code SWBP
13:15:33 <danbri_scribe> ben: originally mark thought it should do an rdf-lite
13:16:10 <Ralph> DanBri: had that discussion with Mark; he now believes it to be a complete RDF syntax
13:16:24 <Ralph> ... expect that it can express all of RDF
13:16:31 <danbri_scribe> danbri: I believe the current syntax is a complete rdf syntax
13:16:40 <danbri_scribe> ralph: that's an assertion that we should test
13:16:48 <danbri_scribe> ...jjc at march f2f offered to take a look at it
13:17:37 <danbri_scribe> danbri: our role might be to help QA the HTML WG's work
13:17:45 <danbri_scribe> ralph: if it is an rdf lite, that could be fine too
13:17:49 <danbri_scribe> ...so long as we know
13:17:58 <danbri_scribe> ...somebody could take an action to ping jeremy
13:19:11 <danbri_scribe> action: ralph to contact jjc regarding investigate of expressiveness (full or partial) of HTML WG's proposal
13:19:22 <danbri_scribe> nick: Some time back I did a review of the earlier proposal
13:19:33 <danbri_scribe> (nick, could you find an url?)
13:19:33 <nmg> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0180.html
13:19:36 <danbri_scribe> thanks
13:20:07 <Ralph> DanBri: have XML Literals been looked at?
13:20:19 <Ralph> NickG: I think XML Literals are now in
13:20:50 <Ralph> ... anonymous nodes and node IDs are also a question
13:22:08 <danbri_scribe> danbri: the examples in the spec are a bit 98-ish in that they assume everything has a uri
13:23:01 <danbri_scribe> [discussion of older meta tag use cases]
13:23:23 <danbri_scribe> ben: issue (esp Creative Commons ish) of link-level metadata
13:24:13 <danbri_scribe> ...clickable links
13:24:40 <danbri_scribe> danbri: this is the powerful thing about the new design
13:24:42 <danbri_scribe> ack danbri
13:24:42 <Zakim> danbri_scribe, you wanted to ask timescale for reviews
13:25:38 <dom> I'm available now
13:25:44 <Ralph> Ben: 2 weeks?
13:25:44 <dom> should/may I join?
13:25:50 <Ralph> yes, Dom, please join if you can
13:25:53 <danbri_scribe> resolved: internal 2 week target for reviews of http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722/
13:26:11 <danbri_scribe> q?
13:26:24 <Zakim> +Dom
13:27:01 <danbri_scribe> ack ralph
13:27:01 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to mention an existing requirements document
13:27:27 <Ralph> from May 2003:
13:27:29 <danbri_scribe> ralph: wanted to point out from may 2003...
13:27:30 <Ralph> the CG-sponsored Task Force produced a requirements document in May 2003
13:27:38 <danbri_scribe> dom, agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Aug/att-0000/2004-08-04-agenda.html__charset_ISO-8859-1
13:27:41 <dom>  http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html
13:27:45 <Ralph> http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html
13:27:58 <danbri_scribe> ...a start at collecting requirements.
13:28:10 <danbri_scribe> q+ to speak in favour of requirement listing
13:28:29 <danbri_scribe> ...we should go back to the may 2003 doc, polish, see if we still agree.
13:28:38 <danbri_scribe> ben: sounds good
13:28:54 <danbri_scribe> action: ben to review http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html 
13:29:02 <danbri_scribe> ralph: eg. it doesn't mention creative commons
13:29:20 <danbri_scribe> danbri: I could articulate a content-filtering use case
13:29:37 <danbri_scribe> q+ to ask whether we'd want the html wg to make a normative reference to rdf
13:30:10 <danbri_scribe> ralph: lets not slow down the good progress we're seeing in html world by spending too long on our own requirements
13:30:46 <danbri_scribe> ben: two approaches we're exploring
13:31:11 <danbri_scribe> GRDDL, transformation based approach, typically xslt, to get rdf/xml
13:31:24 <danbri_scribe> dom: currently we only support rdf/xml
13:31:42 <danbri_scribe> (GRDDL (rhymes with Riddle))
13:32:04 <danbri_scribe> ben: looks like a GRDDL transform could be built for the new XHTML meta spec
13:32:10 <danbri_scribe> ...might help in backwards compatibility world
13:32:28 <danbri_scribe> dom: not quite sure what u mean backwards compatibility
13:32:43 <danbri_scribe> ben: we could build a GRDDL and deploy the same markup in XHTML 1
13:32:47 <Ralph> [re: "we should go back to the may 2003 document" -- my emphasis there was that we shouldn't start from scratch on requirements as there's an existing document.  I hope we don't spend a lot of time on requirements, though I recognize that future consensus on proposed solutions could depend on having previously had a consensus on requirements]
13:33:11 <danbri_scribe> dom: you'd lose conformance with XHTML 1
13:33:15 <danbri_scribe> danbri: couldn't nest links, etc
13:33:22 <danbri_scribe> ben: OK
13:33:29 <danbri_scribe> ben: a bunch of other approaches in the wild...
13:33:37 <danbri_scribe> ...should we look at these?
13:33:58 <danbri_scribe> ...specifically, the 'lower-cased s semantic web' approach
13:34:07 <danbri_scribe> ...eg rel attribute of <a> tags to add types to a link
13:34:21 <danbri_scribe> ...doing this in a way that seems incompatible with the XHTML 2 approach
13:34:29 <danbri_scribe> ...Creative Commons doing something
13:34:35 <danbri_scribe> ...also suggestsions re FOAF
13:34:41 <danbri_scribe> ben: I have some pointers
13:34:44 <benadida> http://tantek.com/presentations/2004etech/realworldsemanticspres.html
13:35:20 <danbri_scribe> (this is xfn etc...)
13:35:29 <danbri_scribe> (tantek former html wg member)
13:35:43 <danbri_scribe> ben: all this rdf/owl stuff complicated, lets get there incrementally
13:35:51 <danbri_scribe> (is the general line taken, )
13:36:08 <danbri_scribe> ralph: does it do something extra?
13:36:26 <danbri_scribe> ben: ?something re vocabulary
13:36:37 <danbri_scribe> ...main difference, is that it uses the rel attribute in a way that xhtml2 doesn't expect
13:36:56 <Ralph> DanBri: is this the same idiom used in XFN?
13:37:12 <Ralph> ... e.g. a space-separated list of tokens in the rel, tied to something in the profile?
13:37:18 <Ralph> ... a decorational link between documents
13:37:41 <Ralph> ... can be quite hairy when folded into RDF
13:37:50 <danbri_scribe> dom: XFN can be GRDDL'd
13:38:00 <danbri_scribe> ...should we bridge the two worlds w/ GRDDL
13:38:26 <danbri_scribe> dom: not sure there's a problem w/ the XHTML 2.0 meta and this use of 'rel'
13:38:48 <danbri_scribe> ben: one of the discussions i had w/ Steven Pemberton and Mark Birbeck... was whether it could be applied to <a>
13:39:18 <benadida> I see the queue, apologies!
13:39:21 <danbri_scribe> David: regardless of utility of adding complexity to xhtml, there will be user communities who'll want simpler authoring
13:39:48 <danbri_scribe> ...some user groups will want gt expressivity, others will want simple stuff
13:39:56 <Zakim> danbri_scribe, you wanted to speak in favour of requirement listing and to ask whether we'd want the html wg to make a normative reference to rdf
13:39:56 <danbri_scribe> ack danbri
13:41:02 <Ralph> DanBri: the way the current XHTML spec is written it doesn't expressly mention RDF
13:41:58 <Ralph> ... if it turns out that they have not actually covered RDF precisely, then unless they make a normative reference to RDF they still haven't done anything incorrect
13:42:29 <Ralph> ... give them help in connecting their work to RDF would help
13:42:41 <Ralph> ... e.g. concerns about bloat from W3C
13:43:00 <danbri_scribe> ralph: I certainly think we'll want them to make a normative reference to RDF and/or OWL
13:43:08 <danbri_scribe> ...that'll be one of the subtle bits of coordination to work on
13:43:20 <danbri_scribe> ...whether they're not making such big comments about rdf, so as to not to stir up dissent
13:43:29 <benadida> q?
13:43:53 <danbri_scribe> ...part of our review will help do that
13:44:07 <danbri_scribe> ...if we determine that either the section 19, section 20 ...
13:44:35 <danbri_scribe> ...does cover 80/90/100% of RDF, and report that to them, it ought to be a no-brainer for them
13:44:44 <danbri_scribe> ...and it'd help both them and us
13:44:51 <danbri_scribe> ...showing explicit semantic connection
13:45:12 <Zakim> -David_Wood
13:45:38 <danbri_scribe> ...if we decide they've covered most or all of RDF, they ought to be willing to mention RDF
13:45:50 <danbri_scribe> danbri: a recent msg from Mark suggested it might have been overly cautious
13:46:09 <danbri_scribe> ralph: they need some msg from us reassuring whether it is a good approach or not
13:46:17 <danbri_scribe> ...we still owe them that
13:46:30 <danbri_scribe> ...until then, it is reasonable for them to be reluctant to make a normative ref 
13:47:02 <Ralph> DanBri: not sure how HTML WG does testing and QA
13:47:09 <prototypo> prototypo has joined #swbp
13:47:32 <Ralph> ... RDF Core WG did detailed testing the second time around
13:47:36 <Ralph> ... e.g. ntriples
13:48:12 <danbri_scribe> ralph: if you're suggesting that the rdfcore test cases, in part or whole, could be used to test this encoding... thats a good idea
13:48:27 <danbri_scribe> ...help authoritatively determine the actual coverage of the new syntax
13:48:53 <Ralph> DanBri: I think it would help to write test cases in ntriples
13:49:18 <Ralph> ... second part -- reusing RDF Core test cases -- would require writing some code
13:49:49 <Ralph> ... Max Froumentin is interested in writing a parser for the XHTML MIM proposal
13:49:51 <dom> I'm muted!
13:50:26 <prototypo> prototypo has joined #swbp
13:50:39 <Ralph> Dom: Mark B said he was working on a translator to N3
13:50:52 <danbri_scribe> action: danbri ask Mark whether he has an xslt parser for the new notation
13:51:09 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to say something about priorities
13:51:15 <Zakim> SW_BPD(xhtml)9:00AM has been moved to #html
13:51:42 <danbri_scribe> ralph: there are other proposals, eg. the XFN-ish stuff
13:51:57 <danbri_scribe> ...i'm worried about the modest resources this TF has
13:52:02 <danbri_scribe> ...and hence prioritisation
13:52:12 <danbri_scribe> ...and ever closing window of opportunity
13:52:16 <danbri_scribe> ...to respond to the html wg
13:52:27 <David_Wood> David_Wood has joined #swbp
13:52:44 <danbri_scribe> ...they've probably had discussions to look at whether their approach fits with other uses of rel= attribute
13:53:03 <danbri_scribe> ...they're reaching out to us, we should give v high priority to that question 
13:53:38 <danbri_scribe> ...if we find some probelm with it, we could evaluate xfn etc., it sounds like the major selling point of xfn is its surface simplicity
13:54:33 <danbri_scribe> q+ to propose a strawman: our focus should be XHTML meta module + GRDDL for anything left over
13:55:07 <danbri_scribe> ben: i'd support that
13:55:21 <danbri_scribe> ...focus on 'big S' Semantic Web.
13:55:28 <RRSAgent> sees 3 open action items:
13:55:28 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ralph to contact jjc regarding investigate of expressiveness (full or partial) of HTML WG's proposal [1]
13:55:28 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-19-11
13:55:28 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ben to review http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html  [2]
13:55:28 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-28-54
13:55:28 <RRSAgent> ACTION: danbri ask Mark whether he has an xslt parser for the new notation [3]
13:55:28 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-50-52
13:55:29 <danbri_scribe> q- #time
13:55:33 <danbri_scribe> q-
13:56:15 <danbri_scribe> ben: so focus, we all take a look at this proposal and reconvene 
13:56:56 <danbri_scribe> ralph, could we draft a template for a response from ben?
13:57:24 <danbri_scribe> ...it might help us to focus our effort if there was a draft in progress
13:57:32 <danbri_scribe> ben: i can do that if i have some guidance from you
13:58:10 <danbri_scribe> action: ben draft a template response
13:59:04 <danbri_scribe> ralph: I thought there was a communication disconnect w/ Mark and Mimasa... 
13:59:27 <danbri_scribe> ...we should repair that, and formally state that public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf be our mailing list home
13:59:54 <Ralph> proposed: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf be the mailing list for this Task Force
14:00:04 <danbri_scribe> RESOLVED: to use  public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf as primary forum for discussion of this TF
14:01:12 <Ralph> DanBri: the XHTML proposal allows these statements to be put pretty much anywhere
14:01:30 <Ralph> ... I'd like to see if this can be combined with imagemap; e.g. to make RDF statements about regions of an image
14:01:42 <Ralph> Tom: Jim Hendler's group has done some relevant work
14:01:56 <Ralph> another telecon?
14:02:35 <danbri_scribe> next telecon: thinking 2 weeks ish
14:02:52 <danbri_scribe> +1
14:02:55 <dom> +1
14:03:03 <danbri_scribe> rrsagent, pointer?
14:03:03 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T14-03-03
14:03:15 <nmg> nmg has joined #swbp
14:04:33 <Ralph> zakim, list attendees
14:04:33 <Zakim> sorry, Ralph, I don't know what conference this is
14:05:12 <danbri_scribe> actions?
14:05:12 <RRSAgent> sees 4 open action items:
14:05:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ralph to contact jjc regarding investigate of expressiveness (full or partial) of HTML WG's proposal [1]
14:05:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-19-11
14:05:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ben to review http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html  [2]
14:05:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-28-54
14:05:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: danbri ask Mark whether he has an xslt parser for the new notation [3]
14:05:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-50-52
14:05:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ben draft a template response [4]
14:05:12 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-58-10
14:05:43 <nmg> nmg has left #swbp
14:05:46 <Ralph> [RRSAgent will write the actions to the log when it is dismissed]
14:06:08 <danbri_scribe> 13:16:48 [danbri_scribe]
14:06:08 <danbri_scribe>     ...jjc at march f2f offered to take a look at it
14:06:20 <danbri_scribe> ...is the last thing I see written to http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc
14:07:01 <Ralph> there's more there, waiting to commit to CVS
14:07:32 <Ralph> [if you're done noting things for the record, then we can dismiss RRSAgent]
14:08:07 <danbri_scribe> done, yup.
14:08:21 <Ralph> rrsagent, bye
14:08:21 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items:
14:08:21 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ralph to contact jjc regarding investigate of expressiveness (full or partial) of HTML WG's proposal [1]
14:08:21 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-19-11
14:08:21 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ben to review http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html  [2]
14:08:21 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-28-54
14:08:21 <RRSAgent> ACTION: danbri ask Mark whether he has an xslt parser for the new notation [3]
14:08:21 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-50-52
14:08:21 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ben draft a template response [4]
14:08:21 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-58-10