See also: IRC log
Steven: Mondays ok up to 1600 UTC end; i.e. could start a 1-hour call as late as 1500 UTC
Mark: Monday up to 1530 UTC end
Ben: Monday ok
RESOLUTION: TF telecons scheduled for 1400 UTC Mondays
Ben: SWBPD WG approved RDF/A Primer to go to first public Working Draft
Ralph: yes, the WG is expecting only small editorial changes now to the Editor's Draft
Mark: there are still some small examples we wanted to get in before it's a draft in public space. I posted a merged document with these examples last week
Ralph: yes, I thought we were going to include Mark's merged stuff in what the WG reviewers saw
Jeremy: propose that we create the version we meant to present and then tell the WG we made a mistake and ask the reviewers to look at [just] the additional text. We can ask this on the WG mailing list and the decision should involve the chairs
ACTION: contact WG and chairs to notify of mistake and prepare the new version. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-swbp-minutes.html#action01]
ACTION: Mark to send Ben his latest XML version of the Primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
ACTION: Ben to draft full response to Bjoern's 2004 email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-swbp-minutes.html#action03]
ACTION: [PENDING] All in the TF to look at http://www.w3.org/2005/05/hrel/ to decide whether it's ready for WG review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-swbp-minutes#action03]
Mark: I recall looking at this ages ago and there was one issue, perhaps about use of types for documents
Steven: something about resource and document
Mark: something that required documentation, raised by Dan
ACTION: [DONE] Ben draft a response to Gary Ng's comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-swbp-minutes#action04]
ACTION: [DONE] Ben respond to Pat's RDF/A comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-swbp-minutes#action01]
ACTION: [PENDING] Ben to draft a new example of RDF/A as an XHTML document that is its own RSS feed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-swbp-minutes#action05]
ACTION: [DONE] Steven confirm an answer on issue 6 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-swbp-minutes#action02]
<Steven> done in @src as subject
Steven: my conclusion is that although there are cases where it can be useful, it causes more problems than it solves, so this is a place where we should duplicate the URL
Ralph: seems simpler to duplicate the data than complicate the rules
Steven: I considered several different approaches; each one either made another useful use case disappear or made it less obvious what was being expressed
Jeremy: @about overriding @src was the cleanest one in my mind. KISS does seem to argue against this override. Simpler rules at the expense of occasionally having to duplicate seems acceptable but let's document this and be sure to apply it consistently
Mark: rather than putting src in the same category as href and about, let's say IMG becomes an anonymous node so the element IMG has a title rather than the resource at foo.png
Ralph: why is it useful to say that a bnode has a title? overloading the interpretation of the same URI to represent both a document and a non-document is a mess we need to clean up -- and the TAG has proposed a solution
Mark: when we add a property to an image, folk who go retrieve that image won't find the title text
Jeremy: I tend to think that one can always improve the quality of a model -- that is, the accuracy -- by adding another level of bnodes. People who are satisfied with the model they have argue against adding layers of bnodes
Mark: Steven? pointed out last week that src was identifying the object rather than the subject; it's as if <img src='foo.png'> were <span rel='image' href='foo.png'>
Ben: if you include META and LINK within IMG now then those properties are attached to the image element
Mark: src can be on any element; what it points to depends on the element so it's like href
Steven: intuitively, more authors will think src is like href -- and not a subject
TENTATIVE CONCLUSION: src is like href and does not identify a triple subject
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ben start separate mail threads on remaining discussion topics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action04]
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Jeremy followup on <head about=...> edge case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action03]
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Jeremy followup with Mark on the question of multiple triples from nested meta and add to issues list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action01]
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Jeremy propose wording on reification [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action02]
Mark: we may want to devote an entire telecon to the related reification question
Jeremy: reification is not must-have for me; it's too broken
Ben: can we try to take up nested META, reification, and the implementation on 13 Feb?
Jeremy: [reluctantly] will try
Jeremy: using named graphs in RDF/A is to big a step from current SW standards
Jeremy: (relates to earlier discussion about reification)
next meeting: Monday 30 Jan 1400 UTC