See also: IRC log
em: GRDDL status?
ben: dormant in TF currently
IPTC upcoming discussion(s)
scribe: meeting under discussion for July (London), re potential adoption of RDF/A and XHTML2 by IPTC
em: re IPTC... july 8 meeting in london
em: ...morning of 8th
jjc: i could probably attend quite easily
em: yes pls :)
... biggest issues i see, some modeling Qs that need sorting out. Various IPTC-related discussions across SWIG and DC lists, hard to get a clear sense of requirements
ben: i agree. discussed possibility w/ danc of having a telecon pre-meeting to scope and make better use of f2f time
em: there are some good summaries
around (esp mark's). being around a whiteboard will be a big
... its v important to identify 'customers' for our tech
... thats my interest in seeing this work happen
... to extent that we can have 2 or 3 of them satisfied by the same underlying tech, those are helpful
... but also helps us make a case for wider deployment (in toolkits, browsers, etc)
danbri: seems v healthy to me
mark: i've been involved w/ both
orgs, and would even say that if we don't get this kind of
adoption, sw won't happen
... i was also in Dublin for w3c mobile meeting
... presented the xhtml2 story
... enthusiasm for the metadata aspect makes you think that if we could get mobile world + newsvendors, both using xhtml2, some major possibilities
em: working with them to acid test this stuff... and help use them as examples, indicators for others to follow
sorry for noise
ben: completely agree. cusomers
are a big deal
... we want this to be real, ...
<Zakim> danbri_scribe, you wanted to ask if we can we fix the agenda and to note that abbreviated URIs for subjects and objects of rdf statements seems to be a req and to ask ericm whether
danbri: allowing qnames instead of uris would be a big win
ben: we talked about that last week
danbri: i saw something (but didn't read detail yet)
<Zakim> danbri_scribe, you wanted to suggest mark and ben collab on agenda prep for next time
jjc: is there an active HP rep on the HTML WG? and active?
mark: melinda(sp?) involved w/ print stuff
jjc: I could investigate the HP/HTML WG connection... get our RDF interest represented
em: ...if we could get not just
us from the RDF camp to talk about qnames, human readability
etc., but from early adopters (eg., mobile web, news,
... draw attention to issues from outside the rdf 'camp'
mark: generally those on the wg
have the interests of HTML authors at heart
... there are other communities beyond the HTML author (news, mobile, ...); good to have backup of use cases from these wider groups
em: we have to focus on 'uses' as well as 'user'
<Zakim> danbri_scribe, you wanted to ask if we should consider this a meeting of the TF/WG, or just a related meeting?
ben: we could...
danbri: ah, i remember now, w3c requires advance notice of the meeting
... please do circulate some results/outcomes of meeting
jjc: are iptc hosting?
em: Misha/Reuters are hosting, or arranging hosting
<scribe> ACTION: ericm or danbri circulate results of london f2f meeting at IPTC (assuming it happens) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-swbp-minutes.html#action01]
ben: 2 main issues?
mark: iptc need to decide whether to use xhtml2 or their own language
(I missed the sketch of the 2 issues; scribe-help welcomed)
<benadida> 2 issues: (1) qnames in subjects and objects (2) attributes defaulting to RDF properties
jjc: presume we wouldn't consider it a failure if they had their own language, so long as was transformable with XSLT into XHTML2/RDFA
em: not sure i'd consider it a
failure, but its not the target i'd hope for
... a fallback position
... might be reality of non-tech situation, re migration path etc
... but i hope to be able to bypass that middle step
jjc: personally i wouldn't be
committed to that approach
... maybe best way to use is directly, or indirectly, ...
em: easier to make assumptions
explicit in f2f setting
... treat them as an xhtml2 metadata customer
... help them model data in a highly flexibile way
... stumbling blocks i see are qname one, and modelling (ie. understanding their goals)
<em> testing 1,2,3
<benadida> ping em
ben: good to contrib to the mail
threads before meeting
... so meeting is a week fri, pls try to contrib mails before then
... good stuff
... some rels like next, prev, defining the rdfs
[HTML] Draft RDF/XML description of XHTML 2.0 link types
danbri: definition of 'Document'
... shall i ref to TAG InformationResource
mark: they're nto always retrieivable, so emphasising they're abstract
danbri: propose using TAG InformationResource
no objections heard
resolved: class Document definition should refer somehow TAG InformationResource
ben: copyright is 1 thing needing discussion
<rdfs:comment>Refers to a copyright statement for the document.</rdfs:comment>
<!-- aside: see extensive debate on Atom list re a similar construct; also
dc: rights, and Creative Commons. Scope for sub-property mappings here? -->
scribe: trying thing thru
... copyright, also add 'license'?
... how much stuff to add into this core vocab?
mark: things like cc:license... discussion of whether it goes in the cc ns
ben: we wantto move away from that
mark: if you remove the "cc:" prefix, you'd need a new property
jjc: although presumably this xhtml2:copyright is similar to
danbri/ben: dc:rights, dcterms:license are the closest dc terms
ben: re html, arg is that the 2
should be distinct
... then q of whether to subPropertyOf
jjc: my point is that a group
like Dublin Core spend more time than the html wg on this sort
... as much as we can suggest legacy migration
mark: could dan add equivalence statements?
jjc: yes, they'd be legacy
... they'd need endorsement by the html wg
danbri: not our job. html guys
get to decide how much to clutter their ns.
... but they seem to have gone down the modularity, external extensions route
ben: ... additioanl terms are up
to the html wg
... lets do the following
... dan, this is great, we need to move to a WG Note, and start formatting this in that format right now
... i'll notify the wg that we're working on this
danbri: i'll write an XHTML doc to go with this RDF/XML
mark: you've used # but the HTML WG's ns ends in / currently
<scribe> ACTION: danbri record an issue re # vs / [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
jjc: lets take this to SWBPD WG
mark: there's all the role values that need to go in here (header, footer, main content...)
"The title attribute may be used, for example, to label the bookmark.
Note that several bookmarks may be defined for a document." ... what does this
mean in an RDF context?
mark: sugar for rel=role href=...
ben: jjc how much time do you
have for help w/ tests?
... incl xslt
jjc: doesn't sound too hard
... what's timescale that you want it done by?
mark: can i chip in?
... item re looking at hierachy
... didn't do it
... we have an action to do it...
... can we work together on it?
... looking for a good rdf example
... something everyone'll accept is a good test
jjc: my presentation at webconf
on this TF
... had 4 examples in html and rdf
... tried to motivate the tf
<scribe> ACTION: jjc to circulate www conf paper [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-swbp-minutes.html#action03]
ben, mark you want to base inheritance rules on this? test them?
mark: testing. everytime you
accom a usecase you risk losing another
... we have some stuff for anon nodes
danbri: propose division of labour. jjc focus on the xslt. danbri on examples.
mark: a set of examples, eg a foaf file, rss feed, 2 or 3 docs, ... would be ideal
<scribe> ACTION: danbri make examples [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-swbp-minutes.html#action04]
ben: do we have the inheritance rules written down yet
mark: i think jjc had the most substantive review comments on the rules, lets get some motivating examples first, to avoid wasting xslt hacking time if rules chang
jjc: the rules in the latest WD
are simple, only 2 in (1) and (2) in metadata attribs
... not inheritance rules as such
mark: notthing more written down
yet, but more to come
... we agreed rdf/a separate doc needs to be brough t into line w/ current thinking
... make sure we happy with that
... we've lost some things, eg statements all about a common object
mark: only ambiguity i have left, in terms of inheritance, or rather 'chaining', ...object of first is subject of next
then we changed to another method
now different again, can do along subject or object(?)
can't have both, need to pick on e that matches common
danbri: expresssiveness vs limits to graphs?
jjc: xslt 2 is ok?
danbri: yeah for starters, as easier
scribe: can use for examples?
<scribe> ACTION: ben to pull in action items from prev meetings [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-swbp-minutes.html#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: ben to coordinate with mark for next week's meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-swbp-minutes.html#action06]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.126 of Date: 2005/05/16 16:49:48 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: danbri_scribe Inferring Scribes: danbri_scribe Default Present: Ben_Adida, MarkB_, Danbri, Emiller, jjc Present: Ben_Adida MarkB_ Danbri Emiller jjc Regrets: Steven Ralph Got date from IRC log name: 28 Jun 2005 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/28-swbp-minutes.html People with action items: ben danbri ericm jjc[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]