See also: IRC log, previous 2006-07-18
ACTION: [DONE] Ben fix content negotiation on his current personal Web hosting site to make http://ben.adida.net/card (w/o ".html") work again [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/18-HTMLTF-minutes.html#action07]
ACTION: Ben update the issues list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/18-HTMLTF-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Ben start separate mail threads on remaining discussion topics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/06-swbp-minutes#action04] [CONTINUES]
Ben: I need to reconcile those two and figure out what we're going to resolve this Fall
ACTION: [DONE] Ben to draft full response to Bjoern's 2004 email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-swbp-minutes.html#action03]
Ben: just about to press the 'send' button
... Bjoern's resignation from validator work will unfortunately make this
message appear to be something of a response to Bjoern's mail to W3C
... I have a sentence referring to Bjoern's "resignation" message
Ralph: strike that bit
-> Ben's reply to Bjoern's 18-month-old message
ACTION: Ben write a prototype hGRDDL profile for XHTML 1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/08-htmltf-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]
Ben: Harry Halpin and Dan Connolly have asked
me as Creative Commons representative to join the GRDDL WG and I have agreed
to do so
... so I'm hoping that the hGRDDL work will be done jointly with GRDDL WG and
become part of the GRDDL spec
... so it's pretty high priority for me to get an hGRDDL profile completed
... including a transform
... proposal so far is to have a profile URI that specifies a transform whose
output is HTML
... the transform will not be specifically tied to RDFa
Elias: people were asking DanC whether GRDDL
could be used to output other content-types than RDF
... Dan asked for official requirements to be submitted
<EliasT> ... http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2006-07-31.html#T20-54-48
Ben: were people asking about other RDF serializations such as N3?
Elias: yes
Ben: GRDDL WG may start in the next couple of weeks
ACTION: Ben make sure RDFA bookmarklet runs locally [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/15-htmltf-minutes.html#action08] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: 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] [CONTINUES]
-> XHTML 2.0 26 July Working Draft
<Steven> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/mod-metaAttributes.html#sec_24.2.
Steven: section
24.2 defines the actual relationship with RDF
... XHTML2 only comes in a "strict" version
... there is a separate specification for frames with a different media
type
... all the "transitional" stuff is gone, though some has been moved into the
core
Ralph: I'm impressed that all of RDFa fits on
half a screen!
... I've only skimmed it and want to compare it thoroughly with our other
RDFa detals
Steven: the XHTML2 specification document is
not intended to contain tutorial material; tutorials are expected to be in
separate documents
... in the case of XHTML4 spec it was hard to identify where normative
specification ended and tutorial examples started
Ben: do CURIEs appear in the current draft?
Steven: no, we're using QNAMEs in content still
as we haven't resolved the CURIE question
... the 26 July XHTML2 WD is not Last Call but we think we're very close to
publishing a Last Call draft
Elias: does role appear in this
draft?
... and does it match what we've decided in RDFa discussion?
Steven: role is in there but not mapped to RDF
<benadida> primer: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa-primer/
Ben: in the 16 May draft of the RDFa primer we use role as an abbreviation for rdf:type
Steven: I am very much in support of that approach
Mark: in long discussion history prior to the
16 May primer draft, role was html:role
... I feel that role needs to be a separate predicate
... we're really talking now about deciding whether both xhtml:role and
rdf:type triples should be generated
... I think generating two triples is wrong
... as I've said in the past, I think class should be used for
rdf:type
... unfortunately we haven't been able to get a clear opinion from the
Accessibility folk
... I think if someone chooses to add the equivalence 'xhtml:role owl:sameAs
rdf:type' to their own database that's fine but we shouldn't add it to the
spec.
Elias: the XHTML spec will decide the
definitions as XHTML relates to RDF and we should be consistent
... we should look at the impact on prior uses of HTML
... the meaning of role, though new to HTML, is not really like
'type'
Ralph: we have a new W3C staff person in the
WAI area, Michael Cooper
... I would be willing to raise the question with Michael and see if we might
get a formal opinion from the Accessibility folk
Elias: why do we need this shorthand?
Mark: when folks began to think about RDF in the HTML context, some people started using role and some people started using class
Elias: as soon as you need to specify two types
you have to use rdf:type anyway
... this happens frequently in RDF/XML; there are documents with lots of
rdf:type predicates
... converting FOAF is sort of a simple case
... what other kinds of documents need this shorthand?
... FOAF has been around a while and users have become accustomed to how it's
used in RDF/XML
... I don't think people often check the type of a predicate; they "know"
what it is
... are there examples other than FOAF where multiple types are clearly
needed?
Mark: one question is whether the ontologies
could have been designed better
... but one answer is that the design of the ontology is not up to us and
people just want to be able to use existing ontologies easily
Elias: Henry Storey's ATOM ontology is very
full and very descriptive
... in general, an ontology can describe the domain and range of its
predicates
... people who want to know the classes of subjects and objects can load the
ontology and make the appropriate inferences
... it's straightforward to deduce the class of a subject
... so how much detail really needs to be written into an HTML document?
... the important discussion is really whether we need a shorthand
... nothing prevents an HTML author from using rdf:type explicitly
... do we have more examples that show a shorthand is really required?
Ben: Elias is coming from the RDF point of
view; we'd need to consider this from the point of view of an HTML author as
well
... e.g. in microformats, people declare Events, etc.
... they anchor their type declarations using class=
... if we make RDFa more complicated than this then we will lose part of the
community
Elias: most people see subjects and objects as having just one type
Mark: another approach would have been to do a
full review of all the features in HTML and see what we could use them to
specify
... in some sense the microformat people have done this
Elias: if we do go with a shortcut, I think class is going to be better, more elegant
Mark: it would be wrong not to use
class for _something_
... and others have chosen to use class for type
Steven: I have a lot of sympathy for using
class=
... but with my chair hat on I see a big hassle because class is
very widely used by a community who do not necessarily subscribe to our
goals
... e.g. CSS
... if we start assigning meaning to class values - especially as it likely
changes the current meaning, given that class values currently do not have a
namespace -- I forsee a lot of trouble
... we will have triples produced that were not intended by the authors
... if we use role we won't have to deal with this legacy
Elias: currently XHTML2 doesn't say how role relates to RDF
Steven: only because we haven't decided exactly
what the relationship is
... we agree that xhtml2:role should have _some_ relationship to RDF
... it's in the draft now at the request of the WAI community
... WAI and Device Independence/Mobile are the two communities who are
interested in using role
... and both are interested in the metadata [triples] produced
Mark: there are best practice statements that some URI points to an RDF schema
Elias: but type is different from role
Mark: that is my view
... role='toolbar' is not saying something _is_ a toolbar but only that it
plays the function of a toolbar
Mark: I think Ben's solution for rel= and rev=
works quite nicely
... unprefixed values come from a specified list
... prefixed values come from the corresponding namespace
... so people won't be making globally meaningful statements without
intending to do so
... but many writers are suggesting ways to add more semantics to HTML markup
and they're recommending the use of class=
Steven: changing the syntactic value of class
Mark: changing the syntax of values doesn't change the meaning
Steven: I foresee a huge controversy with other users of class
Mark: but if we try to persuade users of microformats to adopt RDFa and say nothing about the class attribute then we're setting ourselves up for failure
Elias: we do have to think about adoption
... just because we can define a brand new XHTML container format doesn't
mean we'll convince people to use it
Ben: we'll need to continue this conversation; we're seeing here the many faces of the community
ACTION: Ben check that the issues list summarizes all the viewpoints on role and class attributes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/01-htmltf-minutes.html#action08]
Steven: including that role is a shorthand for a predicate
Mark: I'm proposing that we take as a given that role does generate an xhtml:role triple and the question is whether it also generates another triple
Ben: I sent personal mail to Ian Davis
... as he's done work in that area
... I believe that XML purists deplore QNames in attributes but have come to
accept it
Elias: would that mean we no longer need CURIEs?
Ben: no, it's just a matter of whether it has become an acceptable practice to use QNames in attribute values
Elias: QNames in href?
Ben: not allowed. Only possible with CURIE approach
Elias: I'm not sure I'd even want QNames/CURIEs
in href
... I'm concerned about what would happen with [current] browsers
Ben: yes, that's another discussion
<MarkB_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jun/0009.html
Ben: can everyone make next Tuesday?
<EliasT> I can.
Steven: yes, but not the following 3 weeks
<Ralph> I expect to be able to participate on 8 Aug
Next Meeting: 8 Aug
<MarkB_> http://skimstone.x-port.net/node/213
Mark: there's been some progress on a schema that works with a validator
<EliasT> is it this: http://schneegans.de/sv/
Ben: there was an announcement of a validator that supported namespaces
Mark: yes, schneegans was using modularization schemas. I should contact them.
Ben: I'd like to see a concise document that points to the current work and a validator that does work, along with renderings in current browsers
ACTION: Mark contact schneegans.de folk about connecting with our work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/01-htmltf-minutes.html#action09]
<Steven_> http://relaxed.vse.cz/Wis the one I meant
<MarkB_> thanks
Elias: I'm not hearing a huge validation requirement right now
<EliasT> Ben was asking whether I had any specific XHTML 1.1 requirements. I am mostly interested in reducing the number of issues people have with RDFa. If we can solve one great. At the moment, I don't have any hard requirements.