IRC log of swbp on 2005-10-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

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