RDF-in-XHTML Task Force

Review of Action Items

ACTION: Ben to find Elias's question and link to relevant discussion in the past [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-htmltf-minutes.html#action04] [DONE]

updated the issues list with comments from Elias and Lee [Ben 2006-09-22]

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Sep/0025.html

Ben: DanC commented too
... we have to be sure everyone agrees that this is what HTML means
... the point is that if we use the RDFa rules on existing HTML it should not cause wierd triples or triples not intended by the author
... we can continue to discuss this

Ralph: two questions -- that HTML intended these triples in the past and that some spec documents that HTML intends these triples

Mark: though we cannot retrospectively add semantics, now that we are talking about modules we have additional opportunities
... so it may be easier to answer DanC's question; in the case of a module we don't have control over the whole language but we can look at a way to flag documents

ACTION: [DONE] Ben to put together Lee and Elias's emails into the issues list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-htmltf-minutes.html#action11]

--> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Sep/0024.html

ACTION: Steven to put together sample XHTML2 doc with all mime type, etc.. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-htmltf-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: Ben prepare a sample XHTML2 document for Steven [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/25-htmltf-minutes.html#action05]

ACTION: All TF members take a look and comment on showstopper issues only [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-htmltf-minutes.html#action02] [DONE]

Steven: this was supposed to be in preparation for the HTML WG f2f

ACTION: Ben make sure RDFA bookmarklet runs locally [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-htmltf-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: Ben start separate mail threads on remaining discussion topics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-htmltf-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: Ben update the issues list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-htmltf-minutes.html#action08] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: Ben write a prototype hGRDDL profile for XHTML 1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-htmltf-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]

ACTION: Mark contact schneegans.de folk about connecting with our work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-htmltf-minutes.html#action10]

Mark: this seems to be more related to HTML WG than to the TF
... schneegans is using schemas to validate, so the point was to note the existence of our schemas

Ben: we'd hoped to get them to try validating using Mark's XHTML 1.1 module

Mark: but they seem to be using RelaxNG, contrary to what I'd remembered

Ralph: it's worth sending even the 1-line message to see if we can get them engaged directly

Mark: correction, they are using XML Schemas. I will send the 1-line message

Better b-node support?

Ben: Ivan brought this up; if you want a list of bibtex references on a page
... often you really don't want to name the nodes; e.g. author nodes
... you'd like to be able to copy & paste a chunk of HTML without having to make unique [local] IDs
... how serious a problem do we think this is?
... do we want more support for bnodes?
... people who engage in complex modelling often want bnodes
... but maybe RDFa is not a place for complex graphs

Mark: I couldn't quite get what it was that Ivan was saying that we could not do

<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to note that SWD WG is supposed to produce a Requirements Document

Ralph: we can't resolve this bnode question without the SWD WG, and the SWD WG has a RDFa Requirements document on its schedule

Mark: how does RDF/XML handle this?

<Ben> :DJDKWBDADIH05 a bibtex:Article;

Ralph: rdf:nodeID but I want to see a full example from Ivan

ACTION: Ben mail a full example of the need for bnode support [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/25-htmltf-minutes.html#action12]

Mark: there's also a question of what we're comparing against

Building Test Documents

Ben: I'm hoping that Elias and other implementors will send items for an FAQ

Elias: are you thinking of a WiKi?

Ben: on the rdfinfo site, but perhaps a WG Note

Ralph: I think a WiKi is a good idea

Elias: I'm happy to start a page on esw.w3.org
... my overall feeling is that there is an overall lack of clarity in our documents and they are stale

Ralph: open questions should be on our issues list

Elias: let's give priority to publishing updated documents

<EliasT> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2006Sep/0000.html

<EliasT> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/swdwg-charter#sec2

Complete Specification of RDFa; RDFa Syntax Document?

Ben: previously we had considered that the XHTML2 document would contain the normative specification of RDFa
... but currently there is a lot of detail that is not present in the XHTML2 draft
... the syntax document is out of date
... has the HTML WG integrated everything it intends to integrate?

Steve: I think the best thing is that XHTML2 include RDFa by reference and there is a separate RDFa document
... so RDFa is defined as a module in itself
... so others can also refer to the RDFa module
... from a visibility point of view I think it is a good idea to keep a separate RDFa syntax document

Mark: I agree with Steven
... as we're working on defining an XHTML 1.1 Modularization Module we may be able to incorporate this in XHTML2 without change

<Zakim> EliasT, you wanted to Steven, RDFa will be a module?

Elias: is RDFa not going to be native in XHTML2 ?

Steven: yes, RDFa will be native in XHTML2. As far as I am concerned XHTML2 is the true target.
... there have been requests to back-port it to XHTML 1.1

Ben: a lot of XHTML2 is defined using XHTML modularization

Steven: correct but we are redoing the modules for XHTML2

Ben: but "module" does not mean "optional"

Steven: correct; XHTML2 core will be a set of modules

<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to speak to priorities

Steven: I had claimed a while ago that what we want to do in XHTML Modularisation 1.1 was not possible without changes to XHTML Modularisation 1.1 but Shane pointed out a way to permit this with a 1-line change

Ralph: but which do we want to do first? the XHTML2 module or the XHTML 1.1 module?

Steven: they will be the same thing, though the implementation of the modularization is different

Mark: I vote for focussing attention on an XHTML 1.1 module and everything associated with that
... make sure it all works with XHTML 1.1, including Ben's bookmarklet
... get the whole story right on "current" documents
... once the XHTML 1.1 module is done then it will be easy to import that into XHTML 2
... timing-wise it is important to keep the current momentum from implementors going
... so clarifying the discrepancies between our two documents is an important part of this

Ralph: so an XHTML 1.1 RDFa module specification could be the separate document that Steven suggests

Mark: there is no need for XHTML2 to be on the critical path for RDFa

Ralph: I agree

Ben: we had previously agreed that the RDFa syntaxdocument would be obsoleted and the XHTML2 spec would contain everything
... that's why we let the RDFa syntax document go stale
... but I agree with the new direction to focus on an XHTML 1.1 module

Elias: it is confusing that the word "module" means different things between XHTML1 and XHTML2
....: we should work out the problems in the XHTML 1.1

Telecon Time

Ben: will this time on Mondays be acceptable until at least October 9?

Mark, Elias, Ralph ok

[Ralph leaves for another meeting, Ben takes over scribing]

Ben: RDFa syntax to be XML generic, or XHTML specific?

MarkB: modularization can be used for generic XML, I think

Steven: that's right
... as long as the host language uses modules

MarkB: so, it depends on how generic we think of modularization
... we would like RDFa to be usable anywhere, but we're defining it as an XHTML module.
... the spec we're dealing with is XHTML Modularization 1.1, not XHTML 1.1
... XHTML 1.2 could be built using the techniques of XHTML Modularization 1.1
... because some folks are using schemas to validate XHTML, they're effectively creating a new language.

Steven: modularization includes rules about naming. XHTML = certain required modules

Ben: I think we should focus on XHTML in the RDFa Syntax

Mark: agreed

<EliasT> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/swdwg-charter#sec2

ACTION: Ben to put together a work plan for the next 6-9 months of the TF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/25-htmltf-minutes.html#action13]

it's that simple isn't it? I keep forgetting :)

<Steven> almost :-)