12:50:23 RRSAgent has joined #rdfhtml
12:50:34 Meeting: RDF-in-HTML Task Force
12:50:38 Chair: Ben Adida
12:50:44 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Sep/att-0010/telecon-2.html
12:51:17 Steven has joined #rdfhtml
12:54:13 Previous: 2004-08-04 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Aug/0020.html
12:54:27 zakim, this will be rdfhtml
12:54:27 ok, Ralph; I see SW_BPD(htmltf)9:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
12:55:18 benadida has joined #rdfhtml
12:58:11 SW_BPD(htmltf)9:00AM has now started
12:58:18 +Ben_Adida
12:59:11 Mark has joined #rdfhtml
12:59:34 +Ralph
13:00:07 +HTML
13:00:54 + +1.646.519.aaaa
13:00:58 +David_Wood
13:01:02 zakim, ??aaaa is Mark
13:01:02 sorry, Mark, I do not recognize a party named '??aaaa'
13:01:21 zakim, aaaa is Mark
13:01:21 +Mark; got it
13:01:30 zakim, who is here?
13:01:30 On the phone I see Ben_Adida, Ralph, HTML, Mark, David_Wood
13:01:31 On IRC I see Mark, benadida, Steven, RRSAgent, Zakim, Ralph, mimasa
13:01:54 zakim, html has Mimasa, Steven
13:01:54 +Mimasa, Steven; got it
13:02:02 David_Wood has joined #rdfhtml
13:02:13 htmlwg has joined #rdfhtml
13:02:50 zakim, HTML also has David, Beth, MarkS, Rich, Kevin, Shinichi
13:02:50 +David, Beth, MarkS, Rich, Kevin, Shinichi; got it
13:03:23 MarkS has joined #rdfhtml
13:03:36 agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Sep/att-0010/telecon-2.html
13:03:44 Kevin has joined #rdfhtml
13:03:55 RichS has joined #rdfhtml
13:04:04 Scribe: Ralph
13:04:13 Ralph +1
13:04:25 Chair: Ben
13:04:36 rrsagent, please make log world-visible
13:05:19 zakim, who's on the phone?
13:05:19 On the phone I see Ben_Adida, Ralph, HTML, Mark, David_Wood
13:05:20 HTML has Mimasa, Steven, David, Beth, MarkS, Rich, Kevin, Shinichi
13:05:37 Steven: HTML WG plan is to go to Last Call the end of this month
13:06:11 MarkB: presents Metainformation Module
13:06:23 projector has joined #rdfhtml
13:06:33 ... recall motivations;
13:06:39 zakim, mute me
13:06:39 Ben_Adida should now be muted
13:06:56 zakim, mute me
13:06:56 David_Wood should now be muted
13:07:10 +??P4
13:07:39 zakim, ??p4 is Jeremey_Carroll
13:07:39 +Jeremey_Carroll; got it
13:08:04 Mark: trying to address 2 different worlds; HTML and RDF
13:08:07 DanC has joined #rdfhtml
13:08:18 ... HTML wants to do what they do every day; e.g. metadata for news
13:08:27 ... RDF wants to join metadata from different sites
13:08:37 See http://www.w3.org/2004/09/07-rdfhtml-irc#T13-08-27
13:09:06 ... want to make it so people in HTML world are encouraged to put more of the rich metadata into their documents
13:09:14 ... and so people in RDF world can get this data out
13:09:33 ... not a solution for HTML community to put metadata into an external document
13:09:33 +DanC
13:10:05 ... but also HTML community want more metadata elements; couldn't address these individually, wanted an open-ended solution
13:10:52 (wanted more semantic-based elements -- would be closer)
13:11:42 Mark: need to keep in mind that we have these two communities
13:12:26 ... original attempt was to try to import all the RDF attributes into XHTML
13:12:49 ... thought we had succeeded, such that a current RDF parser would be able to accept an XHTML document
13:13:11 ... but ultimately this did not succeed
13:13:43 ... in the process we did have triples, properties, etc.
13:14:11 ... current syntax is similar to ntriples
13:14:47 ... does have nesting; e.g. the subject of a nested can be [inherited from] the nesting
13:15:14 ... then we evolved the syntax so the new attributes for and could be used anywhere else in the document
13:15:25 ... this encourages authors to put more metadata in the document
13:15:37 ... the attributes are the key part of the syntax
13:16:00 ... we feel all of the base RDF concepts spec is covered by this syntax
13:16:09 ... may need a default datatype for
13:16:23 ... e.g. all content of is an XML Literal
13:16:41 ... not reasonable for a document author to have to say this in every document
13:16:52 halindrome_ has joined #rdfhtml
13:16:57 ... RDF containers and collections are probably covered
13:17:32 ... rev attribute should allow a list of items to be identified as a Bag
13:17:52 ... so I think we have pretty much everything in RDF [Core]
13:17:54 zakim, unmute me
13:17:54 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted
13:18:06 shinichi has joined #rdfhtml
13:18:09 dom has joined #rdfhtml
13:18:11 sorry
13:18:19 responded to some email comments
13:18:29 ... e.g. normative reference to RDF
13:18:37 ... HTML WG agrees; are looking for suitable wording
13:18:45 +Dom
13:18:49 ... the motivation for the syntax _is_ to provide RDF
13:19:55 zakim, mute me
13:19:55 Ben_Adida should now be muted
13:19:58 Subject: Quick glance through xhtml2 meatainformation module
13:19:58 Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:33:20 +0200
13:20:13 [[
13:20:13 Quick glance through xhtml2 meatainformation module
13:20:13 From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux
13:20:13 Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:33:20 +0200
13:20:13 To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
13:20:14 Message-Id: <1091784800.1416.2454.camel@stratustier>
13:20:16 ]]
13:20:19 -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Aug/0026.html
13:20:43 Dom: identified some potential confusion in the model between XML fragments and strings
13:21:30 ... lack of reference to RDF was damaging; not constraining the source of [properties] will make it difficult to interpret of the results
13:21:50 zakim, unmute me
13:21:50 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted
13:22:10 q+
13:22:29 q-
13:22:40 Mark: HTML WG would like some feedback on normative RDF references
13:22:49 ... personally am not sure what a normative reference would be
13:22:59 ... was thinking specifically of the RDF Concepts specification
13:23:24 ... in several places, "the RDF Spec" means the whole set of 6 documents
13:23:34 ... so what does it mean to say "we are referring normatively"
13:24:00 zakim, mute me
13:24:00 Ben_Adida should now be muted
13:24:03 +1 "this is an RDF graph as defined in RDF concepts"
13:24:20 Jeremy: a reference to Concepts should sufice
13:24:34 ... saying you are generating an RDF graph as referred to by Concepts
13:24:39 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/ RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax
13:24:51 ... these graphs are intended to be used according to RDF Concepts
13:25:10 Mark: would this include Collection and Container? e.g. those would not be our problem?
13:25:29 ... can add metadata saying "these are a Collection" and that's enough?
13:25:55 Jeremy: I would personally not get exercised if you left it that way
13:26:10 ... but you might not be able to say you are "RDF complete", only "RDF compatible"
13:26:22 halindrome_ has left #rdfhtml
13:26:25 ... I don't think you can create an RDF graph consisting of a triple whose subject and object are the same bnode
13:26:32 ... that's OK; I'm not worried about that case
13:26:46 zakim, unmute me
13:26:46 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted
13:26:56 ... fine goal to have something that is accessible to HTML authors, this theoretical problem is less important
13:27:25 ... there is a class of esoteric problems
13:27:48 ... the one that worries me the most has to do with language tagging, XML Literals and plain literals
13:27:59 ... I intend to send an e-mail about this
13:28:27 q+
13:28:31 Ben: would like an action to determine what parts of RDF cannot be expressed in this XHTML syntax
13:28:43 Mark: we can add more attributes; e.g. a nodeID
13:28:55 q+ to ask that an explicit algorithm from the XHTML2 syntax to RDF graphs is preferable, to me, to an explanation of which bits are missing
13:28:58 ... some readers will wonder what this is for and may never use it
13:29:01 DanC, you wanted to ask that an explicit algorithm from the XHTML2 syntax to RDF graphs is preferable, to me, to an explanation of which bits are missing
13:29:18 q+
13:29:25 DanC: I want to see a positive mapping from this syntax to an RDF Graph
13:29:34 ... this is more useful than identifying what is missing
13:29:40 Steven: we have such a mapping already
13:29:57 ... we [HTML WG] agreed this morning to include this mapping as an appendix to the XHTML 2 specification
13:30:05 Ralph: would this be a normative mapping?
13:30:12 Steven: yes, it is basically a GRDDL filter
13:30:35 Mark: this GRDDL thing is not quite finished
13:30:46 ... we did a demo in Cannes but it needs to be updated
13:31:28 Jeremy: interested in Mark's comment that a nodeID attribute could be added
13:31:41 ... as this will only be confusing to an HTML author, am surprised that Mark is so willing
13:31:54 ACTION Mark: send pointer to GRDDL mapping for XHTML2->RDF
13:32:22 Mark: we haven't worked out what an ordinary ID on and really means
13:32:31 ... there is an opportunity there to express something different
13:32:55 ... we get anonymous nodes now with nested
13:33:38 ... I don't think that if one of these is named with an ID, does it remain 'anonymous'? Is this up to the RDF processor whether to throw away an ID?
13:33:58 DanC: anonymous nodes and [??] are disjoint in the RDF spec
13:34:12 s/[??]/things with ids/
13:34:31 zakim, mute me
13:34:31 Ben_Adida should now be muted
13:34:40 Mark: there's a difference between an ID on, say, a
for purposes of HTML referencing and sticking an ID on a or a
13:35:10 zakim, unmute me
13:35:10 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted
13:35:19 Mark: and make triples explicitly
13:35:37 Jeremy: one could discourage such a practice
13:35:39 yes, reification is a dirty word. 1/2 ;-)
13:35:54 q-
13:35:57 Ralph, you wanted to comment on reuse of ID
13:36:54 [+1 to Ralph's point]
13:37:32 Ralph: keep ID in an XHTML document to refer _only_ to bits of (e.g.) XML infosets and not to refer to abstract concepts
13:37:36 q+ to note http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#httpRange-14 (as well as http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#RDFinXHTML-35 )
13:37:57 Mark: it seems a common use case to use ID to refer to the source of a quote
13:38:08 Jeremy: referring to something in the body of a document is fine
13:38:33 ... the are other mechanisms to refer to the subject
13:38:56 Mark: in some situations we work backwards; noting what an author _could_ write and decide what it might mean
13:39:11 "he is lost" or "he has lost"?
13:39:13 ... so if we have something that is the object of a triple, it could mean several things
13:40:01 Jeremy: IDs in HTML documents refer to bits of documents
13:40:25 ... some such triples might not be useful in an RDF sense
13:41:17 (is the example they're talking about in the draft somewhere?)
13:41:36 zakim, mute me
13:41:36 Ben_Adida should now be muted
13:42:58 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt says "For documents labeled as text/html, the fragment identifier designates the correspondingly named element"
13:43:34 THis is most definitely not text/html, by the way
13:43:38 zakim, unmute me
13:43:38 Ben_Adida should no longer be muted
13:43:42 of course, what the semantics of an HTML element is not well-defined afaik (e.g. HTML "infoset", ...)
13:43:45 it is application/xhtml+xml
13:43:47 true
13:44:31 Mark: does reification fall into the same category as not being able to express a bnode as the subject and object of a triple?
13:44:43 Jeremy: RDF Core did consider dropping reification
13:44:56 DanC: and I lost
13:45:22 Jeremy: I wouldn't expect a lot of pushback if XHTML2 does not support reification
13:45:36 Mark: is the general thinking that OWL handles this?
13:45:38 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt has "For documents described with the application/xhtml+xml media type, fragment identifiers share the same syntax and semantics with other XML documents, see [XMLMIME], section 5."
13:45:50 and XMLMIME says it's not defined
13:45:57 no, OWL doesn't provide anything that takes the place of reification, FYI
13:46:00 Jeremy: even without explicit support for reification, if you can construct an arbitrary RDF graph you can construct the triples that reification needs
13:46:47 Mark: we will need to be able to make statements about other statements
13:46:55 ... so we may need the ID thing
13:47:21 Jeremy: reification does this not by referring to the triple but by referring to the subject, predicate, and object of the triple
13:47:48 Ben: I think we will need to discuss [reification] more, after Jeremy's email
13:48:06 Jeremy: I will try to show how to express reification in the XHTML2 syntax
13:48:26 [I wanted to mention PICS as a use case for making statements about statements]
13:48:48 http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html
13:48:54 [[
13:48:54 RDF in XHTML
13:48:54 Task Force Document 27 May 2003
13:48:54 ACTION JJC: comment on literals in section 19, 20 of XHTML 2 metainformation model
13:48:55 ]]
13:49:31 Ben: note that some requirements identified in that May document are not addressed by this XHTML2 proposal
13:49:44 ... e.g. not requiring RDF syntax to be rewritten
13:50:16 DanC: there may not be any special support for reification, but it may still be possible
13:50:33 ... specifically, I haven't seen anything done in FOAF that could not be expressed in this syntax
13:51:27 Ben: about the requirement not to have to reformat RDF/XML?
13:52:16 DanC: I don't share that position, however it is reasonable for us to say that the world has moved on
13:52:49 Ralph: I agree that what we have learned in the past 18 months can permit us to re-evaluate requirements
13:52:54 zakim, unmute me
13:52:54 David_Wood should no longer be muted
13:53:04 Ben: relationship of Semantic Web to current Web
13:53:37 ... the semantic web and the "clickable web" appear to be separate
13:53:49 ... the links you click on a Web page are completely separate from RDF triples
13:53:58 ... there appears to be no way to link these two concepts together
13:54:09 ... my position is that we should do more to link these two together
13:54:22 Mark: I agree, we've not done much to connect these
13:54:51 q+ to note keeping visible/navigable aspects of documents in sync with formal knowledge is important to me, in practice, and motivated the GRDDL design.
13:54:56 ... e.g. doesn't actually require that there be a stylesheet there and that a browser use it
13:55:23 ... can't see changes to things as fundamental as for anchor
13:55:48 ... but to say that there is actually a predicate that gives a specific type of relationship between two documents [that are hyperlinked] does make sense to me
13:55:50 DanC, you wanted to note keeping visible/navigable aspects of documents in sync with formal knowledge is important to me, in practice, and motivated the GRDDL design.
13:56:37 q+ to note that RDF "metadata" may not always exist in XML documents and that navigation into and out of "RDF Space" seems required to implement a fully semantic Web.
13:56:38 DanC: I came to the conclusion that sometimes means 'this is my brother', sometimes it means 'this is a document'
13:56:52 ... seems a big challenge to address all of this in HTML space
13:56:56 (just FYI: if anyone still wants to embed RDF/XML directly into XHTML 2 and wants to validate, http://www.w3.org/2000/07/8378/schemas/nrl/xhtml2-rdf.nrl should do the job)
13:57:08 ... would like to see progress, but wouldn't suprise me if it turned out to be hard
13:57:36 Mark: role attribute brings in additional information from a known taxonomy
13:57:44 (does xhtml2-rdf.nrl say whether RDF in