13:54:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #er
13:54:25 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/05/16-er-irc
13:54:29 <JohannesK> Zakim, this will be ERT
13:54:29 <Zakim> ok, JohannesK; I see WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
13:54:53 <JohannesK> Agenda+ HTTP Vocabulary in RDF comments
13:55:08 <JohannesK> Meeting: ERT WG
13:55:33 <JohannesK> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007May/0011
13:55:58 <JohannesK> Chair: JK
14:00:09 <Zakim> WAI_ERTWG()10:00AM has now started
14:00:16 <Zakim> +carlosV
14:00:23 <JohannesK> Regrets: RR
14:00:40 <JohannesK> zakim, carlosV is really JohannesK
14:00:40 <Zakim> +JohannesK; got it
14:10:02 <CarlosI> CarlosI has joined #er
14:11:06 <Zakim> + +34.98.429.aaaa - is perhaps CarlosI
14:13:52 <JohannesK> Scribe: JohannesK
14:14:01 <JohannesK> Zakim, take up agendum 1
14:14:01 <Zakim> agendum 1. "HTTP Vocabulary in RDF comments" taken up [from JohannesK]
14:14:15 <JohannesK> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Apr/0014.html
14:21:03 <JohannesK> JK: there are problems with data URI scheme
14:22:40 <JohannesK> JK: for non-text/plain/US_ASCII stuff data URI must include mediaType; so data URI is not just a representation of the content, but content + media type, which is already in the Content-Type header
14:23:20 <JohannesK> JK: proposal: "new" property for non-text stuff (base64Content); we already had this before we talked about data URI scheme
14:23:50 <JohannesK> CI: Where there problems with the base64Content property? Why did we consider data URI?
14:23:57 <JohannesK> JK: don't know
14:24:41 <JohannesK> CI: base64Content property would be ok for me, let's ask others (who remember)
14:27:15 <JohannesK> JK: ISSUE-011 editorial issue
14:28:57 <JohannesK> CI: ISSUE-012/-013 maybe too much "noise" in the schema, but generally no problem
14:29:49 <JohannesK> JK: ISSUE-014/-015
14:29:51 <JohannesK> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Mar/0108.html
14:34:54 <JohannesK> JK: no solution for ISSUE-014
14:35:06 <JohannesK> JK: Eric has a solution for 015
14:35:15 <JohannesK> CI: i's sort of ugly, but it works
14:35:27 <JohannesK> s/i's/it's/
14:36:55 <JohannesK> JK: I could try to implement the proposal
14:38:40 <JohannesK> JK: issues 016/018/019 about mixing OWL and RDFS -> discuss these in connection with EARL schema
14:43:23 <JohannesK> JK: any new thoughts about inconsistency and complexity?
14:43:33 <JohannesK> CI: I prefer current approach
14:47:16 <JohannesK> JK: issue 007 is predefined value "accept" equivalent to literal "accept" or literal "Accept"?
14:47:49 <JohannesK> JK: Should applications ignore literals when there is a predefined value? Should they treat the literal as equivalent?
14:55:59 <JohannesK> CI: literals and predefined values (same name: "accept") are not equivalent
14:58:22 <JohannesK> JK: issue 006
14:58:37 <JohannesK> JK: e.g.: Accept: application/xhtml+xml, text/html
14:59:20 <JohannesK> JK: literal field value "application/xhtml+xml, text/html"
15:00:03 <JohannesK> JK: or you could split this into several HeaderElements
15:05:49 <JohannesK> CI: always issues with upper-/lower-case, maybe we should say, both solutions are not equivalent
15:07:04 <JohannesK> Zakim, close agendum 1
15:07:04 <Zakim> agendum 1, HTTP Vocabulary in RDF comments, closed
15:07:06 <Zakim> I see nothing remaining on the agenda
15:07:26 <Zakim> -CarlosI
15:07:33 <JohannesK> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:07:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/16-er-minutes.html JohannesK
15:07:47 <JohannesK> Zakim, bye
15:07:47 <Zakim> Zakim has left #er
15:07:52 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were JohannesK, +34.98.429.aaaa
15:07:58 <JohannesK> RRSAgent, bye