SWBPD RDFXHTML TF -- 2 Aug 2005

Action Review

Ben: most of my actions CONTINUE
... worried about finding an interim chair for next 6 weeks

Ralph: yeah, no progress on finding a candidate

DanBri: I'm willing to chair a few telecons but not the entire 6 weeks

Ralph: likewise

DanBri: pointer to Editor's Draft style?

Ralph: see "Style for Group-internal Drafts" under "The Recommendation Track" in Art of Consensus

ACTION: Ben create a way to track progress on the 3 issues of qnames, reification, and custom attributes and elements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: Ben send mail to www-html-editors to assign an issue for the GRDDL namespace document behind the profile [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/19-swbp-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: Ben to notify working group via a status report of upcoming WD of Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/19-swbp-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: Ben to put together the "ACID" test for XHTML2 RDF/A [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: Mark to check edge cases of inheritance in RDF/A [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: jjc to review rdf concepts and fragments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: All take a serious look at Mark's bnode proposal summary http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Jun/0010.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]

Ralph: HTML2 Last Call status?

Steven: churning through issues; schema is getting close
... we now have a complete RelaxNG version and it's being converted to XML Schema
... f2f scheduled for early September; that's the most likely moment to decide to go to Last Call

DanBri: have the link type definitions changed much since the Feb [editor's] draft and the latest public WD?

Steven: there is a good diff-marked version
... copyright is new
... icon and profile are also new
... in the diff, yellow is added text, green is changed text
... orange is deleted text (but I thought that this version did not show deleted text)

Progress report on HTML link types

<DanBri> draft HTML link types in RDF

<Zakim> danbri, you wanted to ask steven if HTML link type text changed from feb to may and to check that preferred xhtml2 ns is exactly "http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/"

DanBri: my task was to make an RDF representation of the HTML link types and draft a note

<Steven_> Orange colour means that the statement is a 'must'

DanBri: lots of open issues at the end of this draft
... current text is largely copied from the XML document
... would like to hear from implementors on some of the details
... some things missing; e.g. bookmark titles
... one open issue: what is the namespace URI?
... have been assuming that we'd use the XHTML2 namespace
... so what [char] is at the end of the namespace URI?

Steven: we could do a redirect if necessary -- what's the reason for requiring it?

DanBri: TAG resolution on # vs. / and information resources [see httpRange-14]

Steven: we put the / at the end to help with the RDF stuff; we thought this gave us the most flexibility

DanBri: I tried to find an expansion for XHTML to use with the acronym tag

Steven: use Extensible Hypertext Markup Language as expanstion of XHTML

<Zakim> benadida, you wanted to ask about using RDF/A to define the RDFS

Ben: does the httpRange-14 issue resolution mean that we can't have an XHTML2 document containing RDF/A that is an RDF Schema for the rel types?

Ben: it would be nice from a consistency viewpoint if we could write the RDF schema in RDF/A

<danbri> +1 on it being nice to have an RDF/A version

<danbri> (I'd like an application/rdf+xml too)

DanBri: I think this should be possible with a combination of redirects and content negotiation

Ralph: in a private conversation with TimBL yesterday he confirmed that 303 and possibly 308 were the only acceptable redirection responses for the httpRange-14 resolution

DanBri: will this make it on the TAG agenda?

Ralph: not likely unless we raise it, possibly via a use case

DanBri: I though I'd done that with a purl.org example
... I'd like to propose [an updated version of] HTML link types in RDF to the SWBPD WG to be a Working Draft
... I'd like to link from this document directly to the XHTML document

<danbri> looking at http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset-rdfs ... tiny little doc

DanBri: should feedback go to just the TF mailing list, or should this be considered a joint WG task with feedback to both lists?

Steven: there is no objection to the SWBPD WG owning this
... the HTML WG has enough on its hands and are happy to just coordinate
... fine with me to direct feedback just to the TF mailing list

DanBri: ok to point into the XHTML2 spec for the definitions?

[no objections]

<danbri> <rdfs:label>start</rdfs:label>

<danbri> <rdfs:comment>Refers to the first resource in a collection of resources. A typical use case might be a collection of chapters in a book.</rdfs:comment>

DanBri: RDF/OWL definitions in-line or in appendix?

Steven: my preference has been to put all that in appendices

Ralph: I'd like to see it inline somewhere [appendix is fine]

DanBri: note my addition of a Class of documents

Steven: when we say 'documents' we actually mean anything addressable by a URI -- i.e. a resource

DanBri: 'resource' is an overloaded term
... can we agree to use the TAG's definition of 'information resource'?

Steven: fine by me

DanBri: on the ATOM mailing list there has been discussion of new link types, identified by URI\
... I'd like to cite that from this document

<danbri> see atom-syntax

DanBri: there's a built-in set of link types in ATOM
... they've decided to use the IETF process to register new link types
... shortnames acceptable if URI has been registered with IETF, otherwise a full URI is acceptable

DanBri: ok for me to announce the link types document to the WG when I'm ready?

Ben: sure

RDF Role attribute

Steven: as far as I'm concerned, it's resolved
... my proposal was to make role a synonym for rdf:type
... Jeremy said he'd be happier if it were a subtype [subProperty] of rdf:type

Ben: the role attribute can be applied to any element?

Steven: yes, it was originally introduced for accessibility
... the accessibility community began defining some roles they needed
... it dawned on the HTML WG that role was more generally useful

<Zakim> danbri, you wanted to suggest it be considered _syntax_ for rdf:type, not a subPropertyOf (which takes us out of OWL DL/Lite for all apps)

DanBri: we should try to avoid shutting out OWL-DL from using XHTML2

Ben: how does <div role='whatever'> apply to the element? Does this effectively become a bnode?

Steven: it may well be

ACTION: Ben add role attribute to the [HTML] issues list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/02-swbp-minutes.html#action08]

Ben: should this be part of the RDF Schema that DanBri is working on?

DanBri: if we're only using rdf:type it's pure syntax and doesn't affect the schema
... is there anything else in the syntax that shows up as RDF Properties or Classes?

Steven: don't think so

SWBPD RDFXHTML TF

2 Aug 2005

Attendees

Contents

Action Review

Progress report on HTML link types

RDF Role attribute

Summary of Action Items