[09:55] zakim, this will be swbp [09:55] ok, RalphS; I see SW_BPD(rdfxhtml)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes [10:02] SW_BPD(rdfxhtml)10:00AM has now started [10:02] + +1.617.253.aaaa [10:02] zakim, +.1.617.253.aaaa is benadida [10:02] sorry, benadida, I do not recognize a party named '+.1.617.253.aaaa' [10:03] +Ralph [10:03] -Ralph [10:03] +Ralph [10:03] +??P14 [10:03] zakim, aaaa is me [10:03] +benadida; got it [10:03] Meeting: SWBPD HTML TF [10:03] zakim, ??p14 is Jeremy [10:03] +Jeremy; got it [10:04] Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Dec/0005.html [10:05] Previous: 2005-11-29 http://www.w3.org/2005/11/29-swbp-minutes [10:06] +??P19 [10:06] zakim, i am ? [10:06] +MarkB; got it [10:09] Topic: JJC's RDF/A implementation [10:09] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Dec/0004 [10:09] notes [10:10] -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/implementation/ JJC RDF/A implementation [10:11] Mark: HTML WG was able to wrap up all its open issues at its most recent face-to-face [10:12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Dec/0004.html [10:13] Jeremy: I revised the rules from the old implementation and wrote code for CURIEs [10:13] ... has some minimal testing [10:13] ... the rules are simpler and there is significantly less interaction between the rules [10:14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Dec/0006 [10:14] ... current spec describes rules more precedurally [10:15] [10:15] rdf:about='my:resolve-uri-curie(ancestor::*[@about][1]/@about,ancestor::*[@about][1])' [10:15] rdf:nodeID='my:bnode-uri-curie(ancestor::*[@about][1]/@about)' [10:15] x:para='4.3.2' [10:15] [10:15] a:match='[not(self::xhtml2:meta)][not(self::xhtml2:link)][not(@about)][ancestor::*[@about]]' [10:15] /> [10:20] Mark: from the viewpoint of an HTML DOM, I had a mental model with a document containing lots of notes and and get 'absorbed' into their parent [10:28] Ralph: the xml:base from ancestor containing about= probably warrants a test case -- I expect it will be a not uncommon bug [10:29] Ben: the about= should be resolved at the point it is expressed, not later when it is used [10:32] agenda+ assign tasks on specification and primer with test cases, consistent examples, etc.. [10:33] Mark: did you find the fit with xml:base and CURIEs to be easy to implement? [10:34] Jeremy: I tried to write a flexible implementation; I break the CURIE into prefix,localpart using some variables [10:34] ... prefix resolution is currently done by namespace lookup but that's a module [10:35] ... I did not find any particular problems implementing CURIEs [10:36] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/implementation/base.xsl [10:36] has the CURIE-URI [10:36] ... regarding edge case, I don't have a particular preference but it's wrong to leave it unspecified [10:37] ... reification of a needs to be specified [10:38] ... corner case of multiple triples with the same reification id [10:38] (or use in place of outer ) [10:40] <#r> rdf:predicate . <#r> rdf:predicate [10:40] Mark: meta and link are now special; perhaps they should not permit rel and rev [10:41] Ben: we did not address in the spec the case of [10:41] ... or [10:41] _:a rdf:predicate . _: b rdf:predicate [10:42] Jeremy: without an id attribute you construct two distinct bnodes [10:42] [10:43] _:a rdf:predicate . _: b rdf:predicate . _:a dc:creator "MB". _:b dc:creator "MB" . [10:44] Jeremy: the inner makes the same assertion about both triples (property and rel) in the parent [10:45] Mark: given ... [10:45] Jeremy: in that case the meta would be about the span, not about the triples [10:46] ... because meta and link are special in referring to their immediate parent. This is useful functionality though it is more implementation work [10:47] ... not sure the additional compactness of reification is worth adding to the implementation cost [10:50] Mark: if there is uncertainty about future consensus on reification, then whatever we specify now might become outdated [10:50] Jeremy: the Last Call document could specifically request feedback pro and con on the proposed specification [10:51] Ben: my approach was to express [as much as possible of] RDF and not make a judgement about goodness or badness of features [10:52] perhaps makes the triples [10:52] _:a rdf:predicate . _: b rdf:predicate . [10:52] and loses the #r [10:53] [feels odd to me to be discarding the id in this example] [10:54] Ben: add this to the issues list? [10:54] Jeremey: it's really just a corner case in which the spec doesn't adequately say what to produce [10:55] ACTION: Jeremy followup with Mark on the question of multiple triples from nested meta and add to issues list [10:55] ACTION: Jeremy propose wording on reification [10:55] oh foo! no RRSAgent [10:58] Jeremy: the question is not whether RDF/A supports reification -- it will -- but rather whether there is a compact representation for reification [10:59] ACTION: Jeremy followup on edge case [11:00] ACTION: Ben start separate mail threads on remaining discussion topics [11:13] Ralph: have we formally asked the WG for a consensus on the CURIE proposal? [11:14] Jeremy: I am willing to put that question to the WG [11:14] Ralph: perhaps proposing to publish the CURIE spec as a Working Draft would be a way to call this question [11:15] ... I may have to either abstain from that vote or represent that the Team does not have consensus [11:15] next meeting: 13 Dec [11:15] -benadida [11:15] [adjourned] [11:15] -MarkB [11:15] -Jeremy [11:15] -Ralph [11:15] SW_BPD(rdfxhtml)10:00AM has ended [11:15] Attendees were +1.617.253.aaaa, Ralph, benadida, Jeremy, MarkB