See also: IRC log
Steven: we had an RDF/A discussion in HTML WG on Tuesday afternoon. EricM and Jeremy participated. Ralph too
Ralph: but I was late
Ben: I'll be talking this coming Wednesday morning at Semantic Technologies conference on interoperable metadata, including RDF/A
Ralph: we learned that the WWW2006 Developer's Track submission deadline has been extended by 2 weeks
Ben: I'm not certain yet whether I'll be able to go to Edinburgh; looking good but don't yet have funding commitment
Steven: Shane took an action to followup with prototype.js people to see if RDF/A processing can be added. Shane knows those people. There was a big panel during the Plenary on microformats. Microformats are trying to do what RDF/A does but without adding new attributes so they're reusing old HTML attributes; e.g. title. This is a kind of attribute abuse. It's a shame that the panel organizers did not ask someone from RDF/A to talk; that would have made the panel more interesting but there was discussion amongst the RDF/A folk afterward on how we might leverage the microformat buzz. EricM did point out that microformats is one of the use cases of RDF/A. Someone else pointed out that we need a way to register rel and role values to make these values 'findable'. If you already have a microformat for date, events, or people you can go to microformat.org where these are recorded. This person was suggesting the need for a similar thing for RDF/A; how do people find Dublin Core, etc.; wants a site where the existence of these can be recorded
Ben: there's a difference in philosophy between RDF and microformats -- is there one place where you go to find everything? Could be a fair point for early adopters; we may need to get marketing-savvy, set up a blog
Jeremy: Fabien Gandon of INRIA talked in SWIG meeting about his work. He said he expects to have an RDF/A implementation in the next quarter. I encouraged him to send mail to this TF list and to make a Developers' Track submission. I intend to followup on this with Fabien
Ralph: the Semantic Web Activity draft proposal is a good context in which to provide feedback on W3C providing a registry of vocabularies and ontologies
Ben: there's also a need for a marketing place for RDF/A; some place to point people to where they'll get stories
Mark: I agree with Ben; a registry can be separate from place for RDF/A materials. A registry is not essential immediately for RDF/A success; all we really need is pointers to 2 or 3 taxonomies that someone would need, such as FOAF. So some way to point to these. RSS would also fill a lot of needs, as does Dublin Core. We don't need a general-purpose mechanism for the kinds of authors we're talking to initially. The shutr example speaks to people who will know about lots of taxonomies already. The marketing discussion is more important. I was frustrated that EricM hadn't prepared for the HTML WG meeting. In the end it was a useful discussion and a lot of points did come out. Regarding microformats, I think it was a shame we didn't have our own panel
Ben: I take some responsibility, as I didn't push hard on Creative Commons to attend the Tech Plenary. After seeing the microformats panel I realized we should have had more of a presence there
Mark: someone noted that microformats don't scale and RDF/A does. EricM was suggesting building demos, etc. Do we have people willing to do this work? We're doing a lot in our XForms processor -- it now follows links, gets CC icons. It doesn't yet parse RDF/A; that's more than I want to do in javascript but we could work on a demo that parses metadata from flickr. I suggested to Shane that we could hand our script to the prototype.js folk
Jeremy: regarding index/registry -- there was some HP concern about whether this was an appropriate role for W3C. I could check whether HP still holds the same opinion it previously expressed. Regarding publicity, during the HTML WG meeting last week one of the more compelling comments was that "RDF/A" was not a good name; it may be helpful to think of a better name
Ralph: I'd intended to participate in the RDF/A discussion during HTML WG agenda but got detained elsewhere, so EricM was filling in for me
Steven: Mark Seaborne in Forms WG said he planned to markup the WG to-do list data with RDF/A. This is a positive indication as I wasn't even aware that he knew about RDF/A
Mark: there was some discussion about whether an XHTML 1.1 module could give us enough of the RDF/A features. Talking with Shane offline it seemed we could get most but not all of the features with a 1.1 module; e.g. link and meta permitted anywhere. If we can't stop people from using some of these HTML attributes perhaps it would be better to show people how to do it in a principled way. If I was to work on a module, does anyone have any fundamental objections?
<jeremy> - no ojections from me, more support!
Steven: I've backed off my original position on 'cherry picking'. Moving these things in and creating, e.g. an XHTML 1.2 that adds RDF/A, role, and a few other things will make the path to XHTML2 much easier. XHTML2 might just become XHTML1.3 as the extra bits might actually be quite small. On reflection I think this may be a good approach, not just for RDF/A but for XHTML2 in general
Mark: the other thing that makes what Steven has described possible is that there was general agreement within the HTML WG that we should stick with tho current XHTML namespace
Steven: there's an issue about the namespace URI, as it doesn't end in either '/' or '#'
<jeremy> I should tkae an action on namespace ...
Ralph: I support work on an XHTML 1.1 module
<jeremy> +1
RESOLVED: this task force agrees that it should look into a solution to incorporate RDF/A as an XHTML 1.1 module
Steven: if XHTML2 just appears as a collection of modules, it would still need to be called XHTML 1.2, but that's fine
ACTION: Mark work on a first draft of an RDF/A XHTML 1.1 module [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/06-htmltf-minutes.html#action01]
ACTION: Jeremy look into the XHTML namespace issue and write thoughts into email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/06-htmltf-minutes.html#action02]
Mark: there was a lot of discussion of this namespace uri issue after the WG meeting. In particular, WAI does need to be able to construct URIs for roles. CURIEs might help us find a solution
Jeremy: one coffee-time discussion with TimBL and DanC revealed that they are keen to remove reification from RDF.
<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to note an issue for future and to ask Mark about next steps on 1.1 module and to comment on namespace
<jeremy> I believe HP would support appropriate continuation of this TF
Ralph: I'm hearing more and more vibes that a 1.1 module will be crucial work
ACTION: [DONE] Ben add DL to the future issues list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/21-htmltf-minutes.html#action14]
ACTION: [DONE] Ben note that about="" is redundant in 3.3.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/21-htmltf-minutes.html#action15]
ACTION: [DONE] Ben note that DL is deferred to a future version [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/21-htmltf-minutes.html#action13]
ACTION: [PENDING] Ben talk off-line with Jeremy about a realistic implementation schedule [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/21-htmltf-minutes.html#action01]
Jeremy: I've been reviewing my workload with my manager and the result is that I may focus my W3C time on RDF/A work
ACTION: [PENDING] Steven draft a WWW2006 Developer's Track proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/21-htmltf-minutes.html#action16]
Steven: I plan to do the draft this week, as the pressure was taken off last week
ACTION: [PENDING] Ben start separate mail threads on remaining discussion topics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action04]
ACTION: [PENDING] Ben to draft full response to Bjoern's 2004 email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-swbp-minutes.html#action03]
Ben: only one question remaining; are we sufficiently confident in the RDF Container work to say it will be included in a future Working Draft?
Mark: perhaps omit NL as we're considering an XHTML 1.1 module
Ralph: I think including NL is appropriate in the context of XHTML2 and it would simply be one of several things in the list of things that can't be done in 1.1 module. Will the XHTML2 editors be able to accomodate the additional container language?
Steven: shouldn't be a problem
ACTION: [PENDING] Jeremy followup on edge case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action03]
ACTION: [PENDING] 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: [PENDING] Jeremy propose wording on reification [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action02]
ACTION: [PENDING] once Steven sends editors' draft of XHTML2, all TF members take a look and comment on showstopper issues only [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/06-htmltf-minutes.html#action01]
Steven: XHTML2 editor's draft hasn't yet been published
ACTION: [PENDING] Ralph add a sentence to 2.2.3 pointing to a citation for the triples syntax [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/13-htmltf-minutes.html#action09]
next meeting: 13 March