14:57:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #swbp
14:57:48 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/11/15-swbp-irc
14:58:05 <Ralph> Ralph has joined #swbp
15:01:24 <RalphS> RalphS has joined #swbp
15:02:09 <Zakim> SW_BPD(rdfxhtml)10:00AM has now started
15:02:28 <Zakim> +Ralph
15:02:28 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
15:02:28 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:02:28 <Zakim> +Steven
15:02:58 <benadida> benadida has joined #swbp
15:03:37 <RalphS> rrsagent, please make this record public
15:03:50 <Zakim> +Ben_Adida
15:04:08 <RalphS> Meeting: HTML TF, SWBPD WG\
15:05:04 <RalphS> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Nov/0025.html
15:05:06 <RalphS> Chair: Ben
15:05:35 <RalphS> Previous: 2005-11-01 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Nov/0000.html
15:05:59 <Zakim> +Mark_Birbeck
15:07:15 <MarkB> MarkB has joined #swbp
15:08:02 <RalphS> Previous: 2005-11-01 http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-swbp-minutes.html
15:09:27 <RalphS> Ben: we should target to complete our work by 1 Feb
15:09:34 <RalphS> Steven: what happens if we don't?
15:10:37 <RalphS> Ben: we make some sort of recommendation on where to continue the work, perhaps within HTML WG
15:12:16 <benadida> RalphS: very clear sense from WG participants that having a point-of-contact within SW WG to this task force is important.
15:13:39 <benadida> ... the SWBPD charter may get extended a few months, should this work be bundled with that?
15:13:53 <benadida> ... there may be a new SW working group with new chairs, and this TF could attach there, too.
15:14:27 <RalphS> Ben: Guus and David made it clear they want output from this TF before 31 Jan
15:14:51 <RalphS> Ralph: we also get that pressure from others outside the WG
15:15:35 <RalphS> Steven: the HTML WG agreed at its f2f to go to Last Call
15:15:41 <RalphS> ... we've answered all comments
15:16:02 <RalphS> ... we are now replying to comments and doing edits to bring the document into Last Call shape
15:16:22 <RalphS> ... perhaps a 6-week Last Call
15:17:04 <RalphS> ... there's a chance that there might be a second Last Call
15:17:43 <benadida> RalphS: where does RDF/A syntax document fit in?
15:18:16 <RalphS> Steven: HTML WG would pull the necessary parts of the RDF/A syntax draft into XHTML2 WD
15:18:52 <RalphS> ... simply due to maturity level dependendencies
15:19:02 <RalphS> s/endend/end/
15:19:43 <RalphS> Ben: what about the RDF/A primer?  would that be a separate document?
15:20:11 <RalphS> Steven: yes, we haven't included primer material in the XHTML specification document; it would be a separate document
15:20:40 <RalphS> ... the primer could easily be a Note
15:21:45 <RalphS> Mark: I would like to see CURIEs incorporated into RDF/A and thence into XHTML2
15:22:51 <benadida> q+ to ask about QName resolution
15:23:46 <RalphS> Ralph: CURIE needs to be REC-track to have any real benefit
15:25:28 <RalphS> ... and if RDF/A syntax depends on CURIE then it should not be a separate document from XHTML2 spec
15:26:34 <RalphS> Steven: HTML WG has already accepted the CURIE idea in principle
15:27:09 <RalphS> Mark: the biggest issue came up when IPTC suggested they might not use namespaces as the binding mechanism
15:27:56 <RalphS> Steven: an interesting conclusion from the recent mail discussion is that many of the objections go away if we change the character from ':' to something else
15:28:26 <RalphS> Mark: responses to my blog point out that CURIE is a way of codifying some existing practice in WiKis and elsewhere
15:29:02 <RalphS> ... I point out that CURIE also tidies up QName usage; QNames can be reserved for what they were intended for in XML
15:31:17 <RalphS> Ralph: I view Norm as a friendly reviewer -- if we are able to persuade him then we've likely done all our homework
15:31:43 <RalphS> Topic: CURIEs
15:32:45 <RalphS> Mark: Norm's biggest objection was that there might be two meanings to a given abc:def pattern
15:33:05 <RalphS> ... one interpreted using namespaces and one not
15:33:37 <RalphS> ... but I point out that this ambiguity already exists and in practice is resolved in context
15:34:09 <RalphS> ... in RDF/XML, the elements are interpreted as URIs
15:34:16 <RalphS> Ralph: and we're proud of that!
15:35:08 <RalphS> Mark: Norm seemed to be happier if there was no ambiguity that a CURIE might be a namespace reference
15:35:56 <RalphS> ack ben
15:35:56 <Zakim> benadida, you wanted to ask about QName resolution
15:36:16 <RalphS> q+ to ask about ':' vs something else
15:38:04 <Thanassis> Thanassis has joined #swbp
15:38:15 <Thanassis> Thanassis has left #swbp
15:38:28 <RalphS> Ben: one course of action would be to review all our prior discussions and document what solutions we considered
15:39:41 <RalphS> Mark: CURIE work originated with IPTC requirement but since then we've recognized an issue with use of QNames -- that QNames are not an abbreviation for a URI
15:40:08 <RalphS> ... so the rationale for CURIE no longer depends on the IPTC use case; we have a stronger motivation
15:40:28 <RalphS> ... the TAG finding encourages people not to use QNames in this way unless they really have to
15:42:08 <RalphS> Ralph: RDF relies on QNames so this question may come back to haunt us
15:42:24 <RalphS> Mark: it's really RDF/XML that depends on QNames -- it's crazy that N3 syntax has to use them
15:42:32 <RalphS> ... with their restrictions
15:44:18 <Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to ask about ':' vs something else
15:45:03 <RalphS> Ben: the argument for a change from ':' is to not appear to conflict with QName syntax
15:45:13 <RalphS> ... but is there a real conflict?  My impression is that there is not
15:45:20 <RalphS> Mark: the conflict may be more political
15:47:02 <RalphS> Ben: if we agree to change CURIE syntax, will we be forced to change other uses of QNames?
15:49:37 <RalphS> Ralph: I see an architectural compromise of the form "QNames SHOULD NOT be used as abbreviations for URIs" -- not MUST NOT
15:50:00 <RalphS> ... but a possible future consideration for any abbreviated URI syntax could be whether it can be used as an XML element name
15:50:12 <RalphS> Steven: I don't see that reverse transformation as being necessary
15:50:37 <RalphS> ... Norm points out that an element name is a pair (prefix, localname) -- not a concatenation of two string
15:53:00 <RalphS> Mark: the issue may only be that RDF/XML uses the term "QName" too often
15:53:24 <RalphS> ... I described this in -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Nov/0021.html "RE: CURIEs vs. QNames"
15:55:49 <RalphS> Mark: I believe that CURIE can continue to use ':' without ambiguity, just as is done in XPath
15:57:03 <RalphS> Ralph: so if there is no actual ambiguity, I would argue that it increases the learning curve for users to have different syntaxes for QName and Abbreviated URI
15:58:41 <RalphS> Ben: if there is no technical conflict, I prefer to keep the ':'
15:58:58 <RalphS> Steven: there is a level of conflict that we resolve with square brackets
15:59:50 <RalphS> ... so if we keep ':' we still have to do something else for, e.g. unadorned CURIE in href
16:00:55 <RalphS> ... we need a syntax to distinguish CURIE and URIs
16:01:21 <RalphS> Ben: yes, the context will let us distinguish QName and CURIE
16:01:41 <Steven> SO if we use [dc:licence] to distinguish, then we could use [dc]licence instead (for instance)
16:03:16 <RalphS> Mark: how about dc[license]
16:03:16 <RalphS> Ralph: that looks like a URI
16:03:39 <RalphS> ... I could imagine a current use of href="dc[license]"
16:03:53 <RalphS> Mark: '[' is a disallowed URI character
16:04:34 <RalphS> Ralph: 
16:04:59 <RalphS> ACTION: Mark investigate authoritative specifications for '[' as a URI character
16:05:55 <RalphS> Mark: note that use of ':' in CURIE allows existing N3 documents to be correctly interpreted, as QName is a subset of CURIE
16:06:37 <RalphS> Ben: I am willing to work on the RDF/A primer, targetting an early December WG review
16:06:56 <MarkB> "The "national" and "punctuation" characters do not appear in any productions and therefore may not appear in URLs. "
16:07:06 <MarkB> from: http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/5_BNF.html
16:07:40 <MarkB> 'National' contains '[' and ']': http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/5_BNF.html#z57
16:07:41 <RalphS> Ben: propose to meet 22 Nov
16:07:46 <RalphS> Steven: regrets for 22 Nov
16:08:15 <RalphS> Ben: we have several little issues remaining; src, role, etc.
16:08:21 <MarkB> (along with '^', '~', '{' and '}')
16:08:52 <MarkB> (...and '\')
16:09:52 <RalphS> Ben: regrets for 20 Dec
16:10:21 <RalphS> Ralph, Steven: regrets for 29 Nov
16:10:33 <Steven> It looks like [ ] are al;lowed: http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html#collected-abnf
16:10:52 <MarkB> no...just said they are not allowed.
16:12:18 <Steven> I think that that sytax has been obsoleted by RFC 3986
16:12:19 <RalphS> Ben: let's work on the smaller issues next week
16:13:03 <RalphS> ... from the -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-current-issues issues list
16:13:07 <RalphS> next meeting: 22 Nov
16:13:37 <Zakim> -Mark_Birbeck
16:13:38 <Zakim> -Ralph
16:13:40 <Zakim> -Steven
16:13:41 <Zakim> -Ben_Adida
16:13:43 <Zakim> SW_BPD(rdfxhtml)10:00AM has ended
16:13:45 <Zakim> Attendees were Ralph, Steven, Ben_Adida, Mark_Birbeck
16:14:04 <RalphS> rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:14:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/11/15-swbp-minutes.html RalphS
16:14:39 <RalphS> zakim, bye
16:14:39 <Zakim> Zakim has left #swbp
16:14:41 <benadida> benadida has left #swbp
16:14:44 <RalphS> rrsagent, bye
16:14:44 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/15-swbp-actions.rdf :
16:14:44 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Mark investigate authoritative specifications for '[' as a URI character [1]
16:14:44 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/15-swbp-irc#T16-04-59