14:00:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #swbp
14:00:48 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/10/04-swbp-irc
14:01:07 <RalphS> zakim, who's on the call?
14:01:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ralph
14:02:48 <benadida> benadida has joined #swbp
14:03:10 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
14:03:10 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
14:03:12 <Zakim> +Steven
14:03:30 <Zakim> +Ben_Adida
14:03:47 <MarkB_> MarkB_ has joined #swbp
14:03:54 <RalphS> Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML TF
14:04:01 <RalphS> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Oct/0001.html
14:04:04 <RalphS> Chair: Ben
14:04:11 <RalphS> Previous: 2005-09-27 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Sep/0024.html
14:04:15 <RalphS> Regrets: Jeremy
14:04:44 <Zakim> +??P13
14:04:49 <MarkB_> zakim, i am ?
14:04:49 <Zakim> +MarkB_; got it
14:05:50 <RalphS> Ben: Lisa Seeman has asked to participate in a discussion of Role next week
14:07:52 <benadida> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Oct/att-0002/00-part
14:08:55 <RalphS> Ben: please look at Lisa's document for next week
14:09:32 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Oct/0002.html Re: The ROLE attribute [Lisa 2005-10-03]
14:10:06 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Oct/0000.html The ROLE attribute [Ben 2005-10-02]
14:10:27 <RalphS> Topic: role attribute
14:11:15 <RalphS> Ben: main question is whether role is syntax for rdf:type or we need a separate xhtml2:role that is rdfs:subProperty of rdf:type
14:12:03 <RalphS> Steven: some examples in the wiki lead me to suggest that we could use the role attribute as a shorthand for rdf:type
14:12:19 <RalphS> Mark: we should consider whether role has any relation to rdf:type
14:12:58 <RalphS> ... one of the examples had lots of rdf:type properties so Steven suggested this shorthand might be nice
14:13:10 <RalphS> ... but I am having second thoughts
14:13:23 <RalphS> ... something that plays the role of something else is not necessarily of that type
14:13:35 <RalphS> ... e.g. a toolbar can play the role of a footer but not _be_ a footer
14:14:16 <RalphS> ... saying a toolbar is a footer might attach all sorts of other properties by inference that it might not legitimately have
14:15:20 <RalphS> Ralph: yes, the client application might want to be able to distinguish between rdf:type footer and things of other types that simply have that role
14:16:35 <RalphS> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/08/02-swbp-minutes#item04 discussion of role in meeting record of 2005-08-02
14:17:35 <Steven> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes
14:17:50 <Steven> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#item02
14:18:10 <Steven> Quote: Steven: the danger of the id solution is that id plays so many roles that you could accidentally insert an id (to be a link target) and suddenly change your RDF 
14:18:10 <Steven> ... in the rdf:type example, I would have written <section role="foaf:Person"> 
14:18:10 <Steven> ... I see Mark doesn't use role much, whereas I use it a lot 
14:18:10 <Steven> ... why this difference in approach? 
14:18:10 <Steven> ... maybe role is being though of differently by each of us and we should write down what role means
14:18:32 <RalphS> [Steven is quoting from 26-swbp-minutes]
14:20:45 <RalphS> Ralph: can we describe what 'role' _does_ mean?
14:20:55 <RalphS> Mark: maybe 'role' is the wrong word
14:21:26 <RalphS> ... in a discussion of several years ago, Raman said that 'class' would be a better word but that word was too confusing w.r.t. CSS
14:21:43 <RalphS> ... I explain 'role' to people more in terms of 'intent' or 'purpose'
14:21:56 <RalphS> ... i.e. "the purpose of this section ..."
14:22:15 <RalphS> ... Raman's examples were to explain why a <script> element was included
14:22:26 <RalphS> ... e.g. the javascript in a <script> plays the role of a hint
14:23:43 <RalphS> ... Raman's use cases imagined a server that adds "role='hint'" to legacy scripts that can no longer be interpreted, then a client can substitute some other hint
14:24:00 <RalphS> ... i.e. the intention of this block is X and I know how to do X some other way so I can substitute
14:24:48 <RalphS> Steven: I'm not sure these definitions clash
14:25:13 <RalphS> ... seems ok to say that something that has a role of a navigation element also has that type
14:25:46 <RalphS> ... [even though] a foaf:Person does have more semantics than a navigation element
14:26:07 <RalphS> Mark: make sure we're not closing off some avenues, particularly with the work that Lisa is doing
14:26:29 <RalphS> ... make sure we're not going to cause something to acquire lots of inappropriate properties
14:27:42 <RalphS> ... perhaps we need another attribute
14:28:05 <RalphS> Ralph: I'm reluctant to start down the path of additional syntactic sugar for common properties; where will that end?
14:29:21 <RalphS> Mark: would like more feedback from RDF experts on whether the semantics of role is consistent with Class
14:29:57 <RalphS> Ralph: I need help from HTML experts to understand what role is intended to mean
14:30:34 <RalphS> Mark: in the early days we considered role to be like a hint; related to appearance
14:30:55 <RalphS> Steven: yes, but then we expanded its use to provide a facility to avoid having to add lots of new elements
14:31:16 <RalphS> ... e.g. <span role="person"> adds semantics to the span
14:31:43 <RalphS> Mark: should elements that do add semantics also generate an rdf:type triple?
14:32:13 <RalphS> ... e.g. is <div role="address"> the same as an <address> element?
14:32:29 <RalphS> Steven: address is one of those few elements that do carry an aura of semantics
14:32:50 <RalphS> ... title is a better example; we have said that <title> is the same as <meta property='title'>
14:33:19 <RalphS> Ben: do we all agree that there is some semantics here that could be as light as xhtml2:role or as strong as rdf:type?
14:33:35 <RalphS> ... we're trying to figure out how strong a statement we're making with role
14:33:54 <RalphS> Steven: yes; it's clear that role does specify semantic information.  We're trying to clarify its role w.r.t. RDF
14:34:50 <RalphS> ACTION: Ben summarize the question of semantics of the HTML role attribute and solicit feedback from RDF experts
14:35:13 <RalphS> Topic: compact URIs
14:35:59 <RalphS> Ben: my concern is not href with CURI -- people who use that construct need to know that old browsers won't recognize CURIs
14:36:16 <RalphS> ... bigger concern is other attributes like role that use qnames
14:36:22 <RalphS> s/role/rel/
14:37:02 <RalphS> Mark: I think it's OK; if CURI is a superset of QName then if QName works in rel a CURI will also work
14:37:41 <RalphS> ... e.g. in XHTML2 we're specifying that role='next' is shorthand for 'role=xhtml:next'
14:37:56 <RalphS> Ben: aren't we requiring additional syntax for CURIs?
14:38:12 <RalphS> Mark: only to resolve the ambiguity in the datatype that accepts both URIs and CURIs
14:38:40 <RalphS> ... the tricky bit is that we have one syntax for rel (only CURI) and another syntax for href (either URI or CURI)
14:39:19 <RalphS> Ben: so rel='cc:license' would be ok but rel='http://creativecommons.org/license' is not ok?
14:39:22 <RalphS> Mark: right
14:39:54 <RalphS> ... two different syntax for rel and href -- would be nice if there were only one syntax but that creates a backwards compatibilty issue
14:40:42 <RalphS> Ben: if there were some magic that let old browsers understand CURIs in href, we'd want to use that magic
14:41:39 <RalphS> Ralph: two syntaxes is more cognitive load for users but compatibility gets higher priority for me
14:42:33 <RalphS> Mark: with what are we trying to maintain compatibility?
14:42:49 <RalphS> ... what exactly would be the issue with "rel='[next]'"
14:43:14 <RalphS> ... we've already said that existing XHTML1 documents might not be XHTML2 documents
14:43:53 <RalphS> Ralph: I think that's going to be a big issue (XHTML1 doc not being a valid XHTML2 doc)
14:44:41 <RalphS> Ben: summarizing current proposal; rel is CURI only and about, href are either URI or CURI
14:45:30 <RalphS> ... so change from earlier discussions is that rel, rev, property, role are upgraded to CURI
14:49:59 <RalphS> Ralph: I suggest polling the XHTML WG and SWBPD WG more formally
14:50:17 <RalphS> ... I have just polled the W3C Staff about this CURI idea
14:50:34 <RalphS> Steven: HTML WG has already discussed; will find the reference
14:51:12 <Steven> http://www.w3.org/2005/09/21-html-minutes.html#item07
14:51:36 <RalphS> Mark: I am writing a document summarizing CURIs
14:51:48 <RalphS> ... IPTC has already adopted this as a solution
14:52:13 <RalphS> ... they had initially wanted W3C to change the definition of QName
14:53:15 <RalphS> ACTION: Mark write CURI specification by 10 Oct
14:54:01 <RalphS> Topic: Details of RDF/A syntax, inheritance, etc ...
14:54:26 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Sep/0026.html Mark, Ralph, and Ben meet up [Ben 2005-09-29]
14:54:46 <RalphS> Ben: let's table this until next week when I hope to have more examples to flesh out these inheritance ideas
14:55:29 <RalphS> Ben: let's also consider Jeremy's concerns about reification
14:57:14 <RalphS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Oct/0007.html CC use case [Jeremy 2005-10-04]
14:58:06 <RalphS> Ralph: I think reification plays an important role in helping people use RDF but it certainly has been confusing to users and there is considerable opinion that it should be dropped from RDF
14:58:20 <RalphS> Mark: Reuters feels that reification is very important
14:59:05 <RalphS> ... provenance; who has made a statement, when they said it, etc.
15:00:35 <RalphS> Ralph: one of the original use cases for reification was to support PICS
15:00:47 <RalphS> ... I'd like to see other big use cases
15:01:21 <RalphS> Ben: Jeremy's example is not something that Creative Commons would adopt in the way he proposes as it changes too much
15:02:18 <RalphS> ACTION: Ben to reconstruct action on role attribute with help of Danbri [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/27-swbp-irc#T14-28-08]
15:02:19 <RalphS> -- done
15:02:30 <RalphS> ACTION: Jeremy consider Creative Commons 'who made this license' use case w.r.t. reification
15:02:31 <RalphS> -- done
15:02:36 <RalphS> next meeting: 11 Oct
15:02:51 <RalphS> ACTION: Ralph and Ben to augment the issues list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/27-swbp-irc#T14-30-04]
15:02:54 <RalphS> -- continues
15:02:59 <RalphS> Ralph: I claim some progress
15:03:20 <RalphS> 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]
15:03:22 <RalphS> -- continues
15:03:46 <RalphS> ACTION: Mark to check edge cases of inheritance in RDF/A [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action06]
15:03:49 <RalphS> -- continues
15:03:55 <RalphS> [adjourned]
15:03:58 <Zakim> -Steven
15:03:59 <Zakim> -MarkB_
15:03:59 <Zakim> -Ben_Adida
15:04:03 <Zakim> -Ralph
15:04:05 <Zakim> SW_BPD(rdfxhtml)10:00AM has ended
15:04:06 <Zakim> Attendees were Ralph, Steven, Ben_Adida, MarkB_
15:04:07 <RalphS> rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:04:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/10/04-swbp-minutes.html RalphS
15:04:08 <benadida> benadida has left #swbp
15:04:15 <RalphS> rrsagent, please make this record public
15:15:22 <RalphS> zakim, bye
15:15:22 <Zakim> Zakim has left #swbp