14:59:52 RRSAgent has joined #swbp 15:00:09 Meeting: SemWeb BPD HTML Task Force 15:00:13 Chair: Ben Adida 15:00:42 Previous: 2004-10-22 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Oct/0024.html 15:00:58 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Oct/0048.html 15:01:08 Ralph has changed the topic to: SWBP HTML TF agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Oct/0048.html 15:02:22 SW_BPD(xhtml)11:00AM has now started 15:02:29 +Ralph 15:02:55 + +aaaa 15:03:04 DanC has joined #swbp 15:03:10 zakim, aaaa is Jeremy 15:03:10 +Jeremy; got it 15:03:18 +DanC 15:04:57 benadida has joined #swbp 15:05:25 jjc has joined #swbp 15:05:28 +Ben_Adida 15:06:03 Regrets: Mark 15:08:26 ACTION: Ben report back HTML WG on our evaluation of RDF/A 15:08:39 ACTION 1= Ben report back to HTML WG on our evaluation of RDF/A 15:09:06 zakim, who's on the call? 15:09:06 On the phone I see Ralph, Jeremy, DanC, Ben_Adida 15:10:20 Topic: Action review 15:10:36 ACTION BenA assesses impact of namespace and media type change on CC 15:10:51 BenA: talked with Mike, CTO of CC 15:11:10 ... happy to have an XHTML 2 solution but we expect adoption to not be immediate 15:11:57 ... CC has to decide how to move to a notation that will be XHTML2-compliant and that is going to at least render correctly in current deployed browsers and ideally that would validate 15:12:10 ... may adopt the current RDF/A syntax inside our recommended HTML 15:12:14 (hmm... is there an XHTML2 validation service yet?) 15:12:34 BenA:... regarding literals, considering Jeremy's comments it appears we are in fine shape 15:12:49 ... we don't see a need for XML literals 15:12:58 ... we do need plain literals 15:13:14 JJC: do you care about having to duplicate content? 15:13:27 BenA: I am a big supporter of not having to duplicate content, yes 15:13:43 action complete 15:13:44 BenA determines CC requirement with respect to literals 15:13:51 complete (see above) 15:13:59 BenA to find someone to determine requirement with respect to FOAF and literals 15:14:13 BenA: will be contacting Dan Brickley 15:14:17 action continues 15:14:30 ACTION JJC to check nodeID and bnode issues 15:14:33 completed 15:15:37 ACTION: JJC contact Dan Brickley to determine requirement with respect to FOAF and literals 15:15:47 (replace similar action on BenA) 15:15:55 s/replace/replaces/ 15:16:04 ACTION Steven and Mark to add about="" to example 6.1 (CC) 15:16:34 http://www.formsplayer.com/notes/rdf-a.html appears to have last been modified on 2004-09-22 15:16:37 action continues 15:17:02 ACTION DanC: ask for contact from SHOE/DAML/OWL "how do I put this in my web page?" community 15:17:08 action continues 15:18:19 DanC: what is the time window for getting a SHOE/DAML/OWL person into the discussion and up to speed? 15:18:39 BenA: HTML WG meets f2f week after next and hopes to go to Last Call shortly thereafter 15:18:55 JJC: want to talk about complexity. This may hurt the HTML WG schedule 15:19:38 DanC: GRDDL does not depend on the HTML WG taking further action 15:21:21 Ralph: I fully expect this TF to come back to GRDDL discussions once we've gotten our feedback to the HTML WG 15:21:53 Topic: Jeremy's XSLT2 implementation of RDF/A 15:21:55 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Oct/att-0052 15:22:01 q+ to suggest recruiting a reviewer, or at least an alpha tester 15:22:38 JJC: I just updated the XSLT2 implementation and now believe it to be a complete implementation of RDF/A except for the bnode() Xpointer scheme 15:22:42 DanC, you wanted to suggest recruiting a reviewer, or at least an alpha tester 15:23:33 ACTION: Ben test JJC's implementation on CC cases 15:23:36 (oh there's a bug to do with whitespace within XMLLiterals) 15:24:10 JJC: the key goal of the implementation was to have a clear mapping from the document to the code 15:24:37 ... the critical sections (4 and 5) correspond paragraph-by-paragraph 15:24:46 (hmm... is it worth putting the "simple rules using XPath expressions" in the RDF/A spec?) 15:25:00 ... there are two transformations from the doc to the final XSLT2 code 15:25:25 ... it's meant to be obvious where to change the code if the spec is changed 15:25:51 Topic: Jeremy's Comments on RDF/A 15:26:21 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Oct/0047.html RDF/A review summary [Jeremy 2004-10-28] 15:26:50 JJC: the I18N WG raised a formal objection to the RDF Core's decision on xml:lang in XML Literals 15:27:06 (my instinct would be to get the RDF/A spec to the point where the rules could be scraped from it, ala "ical RDF schema: derived from the RFC" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-calendar/2004Mar/0007.html) 15:27:09 ... RDF Core decided to simplify XML Literals so they were just like other datatypes w/o an xml:lang 15:27:31 ... using to add xml:lang back when necessary 15:27:35 q+ 15:28:04 ack DanC 15:28:05 ... if RDF/A goes to Last Call as currently written the I18N folk are likely to again raise a strong objection 15:28:28 DanC: I don't care much about the details until I hear someone actually using a feature 15:28:47 ... RDF Core spent a year on the details of language tagging and I'm not aware of anyone using it 15:28:55 ... people are creating new properties 15:29:13 JJC: we have Jena users using xml:lang 15:29:48 BenA: tempted to say this is not in our scope 15:29:56 q+ to suggest the W3C translation system as a use case 15:30:09 ... as the same problem occurs in RDF/XML 15:30:19 http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Translation/ 15:30:42 JJC: within RDF/XML the authors are explicitly told that xml:lang is not in scope and if they want it they must include it explicitly 15:30:54 ... whereas with XHTML the expectation is that xml:lang is in scope 15:31:15 ... e.g. language-dependent stylesheets would be expected to work inside this XML markup 15:31:29 ack DanC 15:31:29 DanC, you wanted to suggest the W3C translation system as a use case 15:31:55 DanC: I think Ivan Herman is the person responsible for the W3C translations database 15:32:06 ... think he maintains that by hand, not by automated scraping 15:32:44 ... I18N WG might be able to point to use cases 15:33:43 DanC: we could point out to the HTML WG the risks of this current solution 15:35:40 JJC: I have a solution, which doesn't require the HTML author to do anything more; the mapping (XSLT) adds the 15:37:19 RESOLVED to point out to HTML WG the risk of I18N objections to the RDF/A handling of xml:lang but that we feel a solution exists that requires no additional work for HTML authors 15:37:50 JJC: regarding literals ... 15:38:06 ... last week people were interested in having plain literals in element content 15:38:08 (pointer to something to stare at, please?) 15:38:30 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Oct/0037 15:38:41 datatypes + in-line plain literals 15:39:40 JJC: my suggestion is to take the xpath text if there is other markup present; i.e. ignore the markup 15:40:10 DanC: example would be more compelling if it used something other than , as is already special 15:40:37 JJC: this would be easy to implement; didn't do it in order to stay strictly to the written spec 15:41:39 JJC: two ways to denote a plain literal in element content 15:41:52 ... 1. special datatype 2. separate attribute 15:42:14 DanC: I prefer a separate attribute, as the type of the datatype attribute is QName 15:42:30 Ralph: we could make a plain literal QName 15:42:55 JJC: in RDF plain literals have a lang tag so they're not typed 15:43:13 ... prefer separate attribute approach 15:43:39 (yes, "ugh" applies to almost all aspecs of datatypes in RDF.) 15:44:17 .//text() 15:44:25 PROPOSE to propose to HTML WG a 'plain="true"' attribute 15:44:29 takes the text() nodes of descendenents 15:46:12 yes, let's ask them to replace the metainfo module with RDF/A 15:47:26 RESOLVED to propose to HTML WG a 'plain="true"' attribute 15:48:13 RESOLVED to propose to HTML WG a 'plain="true"' attribute for expressing plain literals in element content 15:48:58 PROPOSE We find RDF/A a big step forward and hope that this will supplement the metainformation module 15:49:32 (I'd like to add "it's so nifty I implemented it") 15:49:50 Our detailed criticism of RDF/A is intended to helpfurther improve this work, and is not intended negatively 15:49:59 Our detailed criticism of RDF/A is intended to helpfurther improve this work, and is not intended negatively 15:50:04 Our detailed criticism of RDF/A is intended to helpfurther improve this wok. 15:50:13 (more fodder: "toward the long-standing needs of the RDF deployment community to mix semantic web data with HTML documents") 15:50:41 . /hope that this will supplement/encourage the HTML WG to use it in place of the 22 July metainformation module 15:52:53 ACTION: BenA to write up a version of the above and send to list 15:53:02 PROPOSE We find RDF/A a big step forward and encourage the HTML WG to use it in place of the 22 July metainformation module. Our detailed criticism of RDF/A is intended to helpfurther improve this work toward the long-standing needs of the RDF deployment community to mix semantic web data with HTML documents. 15:53:20 (consensus among the 4 of us) 15:53:30 Connolly 2nds that and trusts ben to stay in that neightborhood. 15:53:42 JJC: there are quite a number of ways to determine subjects and objects and the objects are particularly complicated 15:53:58 ... it's very hard to keep track of this all 15:54:12 ... my implementation does keep track in an elegant way that is hugely inefficient 15:54:37 ... the resulting complexity is too much for humans to understand and sufficiently hard that programs will frequently be wrong as well 15:54:58 ... getting rid of the the predicate inheritance rules would help some 15:55:26 ... the subject rules amount to 8 different ways to determine a subject 15:55:53 ... this is a lot but not too bad 15:56:20 ... in paragraph 4.4.3 there is a rule 15:57:13 ... different treatment for link & meta elements than all other elements 15:57:46 ... most of the examples in RDF/A actually produce more triples than the authors intend 15:58:15 ... the current draft is good but not yet REC-quality 15:59:01 ... it's not yet clear which rules need to be removed; this is a complex language design issue 16:01:29 PROPOSED: that after initial implementation experience with RDF/A [@@date], the balance between ease-of-authoring and implementation complexity seems not quite right 16:02:05 withdrawn. 16:03:22 PROPOSED: the current rules provide more options than needed and produce more triples than intended. We offer to work with the HTML WG to simplify the rules for determining resource-valued objects 16:03:41 JJC: the essential idea of 4.4.3 introduces a huge complexity 16:03:50 RESOLVED: the current rules provide more options than needed and produce more triples than intended. We offer to work with the HTML WG to simplify the rules for determining resource-valued objects 16:04:03 JJC: but I also like 4.4.3 as well 16:06:57 (http://www.timeanddate.com/ is your friend) 16:07:10 Ben: I could be available 8:30am-1:00pm EST 16:07:14 ... on Monday 16:07:43 -DanC 16:07:47 -Ralph 16:07:48 -Jeremy 16:07:49 -Ben_Adida 16:08:05 SW_BPD(xhtml)11:00AM has ended 16:08:06 Attendees were Ralph, +aaaa, Jeremy, DanC, Ben_Adida 16:08:14 rrsagent, bye 16:08:14 I see 5 open action items: 16:08:14 ACTION: Ben report back to HTML WG on our evaluation of RDF/A [1] 16:08:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/29-swbp-irc#T15-08-26 16:08:14 ACTION: JJC contact Dan Brickley to determine requirement with respect to FOAF and literals [2] 16:08:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/29-swbp-irc#T15-15-37 16:08:14 ACTION: DanC to ask for contact from SHOE/DAML/OWL "how do I put this in my web page?" community [3] 16:08:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/29-swbp-irc#T15-17-02 16:08:14 ACTION: Ben test JJC's implementation on CC cases [4] 16:08:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/29-swbp-irc#T15-23-33 16:08:14 ACTION: BenA to write up a version of the above and send to list [5] 16:08:14 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/29-swbp-irc#T15-52-53