See also: IRC log, previous 2007-06-14
ACTION: Ben to add @RESOURCE and @HREF to his task list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/14-rdfa-minutes.html#action17] [DONE]
Ben: that action was to remind me to put those back on today's agenda
ACTION: Ben to figure out the RDFa-GRDDL-profile URI (at w3.org) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/14-rdfa-minutes.html#action15] [CONTINUES]
Ben: I'm still gathering information
ACTION: [DONE] Ben to take care of issues 2, 5, 25,28, 29 via list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/14-rdfa-minutes.html#action16]
ACTION: Ben send email to SWD WG list summarizing RDFa document status [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/31-rdfa-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUES]
Ralph: this came about from a schedule discussion in the 16 April Mnutes
Ben: we have Primer, Syntax, Use Cases, and
Test Cases
... Primer is in pretty good shape, Syntax has to be in shape in 4 to 6
weeks
Steven: Shane would like the Syntax document integrated with the XHTML2 WG publication system but that means dropping xmlspec
Ben: we agreed that we would like to enlist
Shane
... so OK to move source to XHTML
... Shane said there wouldn't be much of the XHTML2 pubs syntax I need to
learn for RDFa
Steven: I feel that only normative text should
be Rec-track
... I don't see the added value to put a primer through Rec
... test cases can be part of a package with syntax; during CR the test cases
are used
... but the test suite does not need to be Rec
... CR package is the Syntax document supported by the test cases
... in particular, test cases don't go in www.w3.org/TR because we want to be
able to update them without going through a whole publication cycle
... only the [Syntax] specification goes in /TR
Mark: that applies to DTDs and schemas as well
Steven: yes
Mark: Ivan commented that CURIE spec was "nothing but a note"
Steven: I think CURIE should be Rec-track
Shane: Ivan was wrong -- CURIE is a Working Draft
Ralph: historically, we've put our most
up-to-date decisions about design into the Primer
... if we're deciding here that all normative text is only in the Syntax
document, then I'm happy
Mark: if we keep the Primer as Note then we can
update it more easily
... and could update it to refer to design changes that would appear in a
future Syntax draft
... we can keep the notion of "RDFa core attributes" as a concept only, so
long as the Syntax document is referring to HTML+RDFa
Ben: Syntax and XHTML Modularization needs to be Rec-track. Do we need to decide today whether they are a single document or two?
Mark: let's just create Syntax as RDFa+HTML
... later we could split out "core" attributes if we wish
Ralph: yes, please, let's focus on [X]HTML
Ben: so Syntax document should be a single document with RDFa and HTML?
Shane: my concern is that we'll duplicate
content between the specification of the language and the syntax document
... to my mind, a syntax document is a set of processing rules
Mark: if there was a section of processing
rules at the beginning of a document describing RDFa in the context of HTML,
is that OK?
... we know we could always extract that section into another document
later
Shane: there are other documents we haven't
talked about; e.g. XHTML+RDFa -- an existing specification of modules
... [the modularization document] should refer to the syntax document
<Steven> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-xhtml-rdfa-20070417/
Mark: instead of a generic RDFa document plus a
separate RDFa+HTML+modularization document, we just merge everything into one
document
... one document with 2 appendices; a DTD appendix and a Modularization
appendix
Ben: I'll document this to the SWD WG list and this Task Force list
ACTION: Ben start a list of RDF/XML features that are not supported by RDFa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/23-swd-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
Ben: Michael has started this, however
-> RDF features covered by RDFa
ACTION: Ben to look into Science Commons use case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/11-htmltf-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUES]
Mark: I previously mentioned a meeting at XTech
between Mark, Elias, me, and some Joost folk
... we feel we've settled XMLliteral with them
Ben: I'm hoping to get Elias to write some documentation for operator RDFa
ACTION: Elias to send email to list with use case from IBM [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/04-htmltf-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Mark produce more examples of applicability of n-ary relations from IPTC documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/23-htmltf-minutes.html#action08] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: [DONE] Mark to write up a consistent story on the @SRC attribute [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/23-rdfa-minutes.html#action17]
Mark: I'm proposing to treat this specifically for IMG
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jun/0085.html [Proposal] ISSUE-42: How does RDFa deal with @src [Mark 2007-06-21]
ACTION: MarkB to work rdf:label back into RDFa syntax when using @content [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/19-rdfa-minutes.html#action25] [CONTINUES]
Mark: this is very difficult. I will post what I have thus far but it might not be resolvable
ACTION: MichaelH to do partitioning of TCs, freeze the XHTML1.1+RDFa, and invite implementors to comment. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/16-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] [CONTINUES]
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]
Steven: I've done it to some extent, but periodically update it
ACTION: Wing add a property to the test case schema for tracking origin and approval of an individual test [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUES]
-> ISSUE-1
Ben: I believe the outstanding proposal is
highly outdated
... given the current trend, it sounds to me like we should not support
reification
... is this easy to resolve now? If not, we'll leave it to another meeting
for more discussion
... I will propose to POSTPONE this issue
... i.e. not in version 1, possibly to be revisited for a future version
-> ISSUE-3
Ben: on the principle of not changing current WD too much, I suggest we stick with what's in the WD now
Mark, Steven: ok
-> ISSUE-6
Ben: this concerns details of how xml:lang is
inherited, etc.
... I will schedule this for a future meeting
Mark: I was getting the sense that the mail
discussion felt this would lead us out of a trap
... I particularly like that it is clear there's a different attribute
... and that this would support having an object anywhere in the document
Steven: I'm still not happy about this one; I find it a complication
Ben: I may have to revisit my own position, as yesterday I noticed a use of @HREF on SPAN in Creative Commons, so people may not be as uncomfortable with HREF other places as I thought
Mark: while I still don't agree that @HREF
everywhere is confusing, as I looked into this more I decided that we should
define a set of core attributes that always have the same meaning
... the host language can layer additional semantics on top
... so @HREF may add navigation semantics on top of @RESOURCE
... and we'd still like to be able to refer to non-navigable [objects]
Shane: I've been persuaded by Mark's argument plus another one regarding evolution of the language; if clicking an element today does nothing even though it has @HREF but in the future things change so the same document is interpreted differently, [that would be a problem]
Steven: I have a problem encoding within a document that a reference is non-navigable. Later if you want it to be navigable you have to change the document
Mark: the Joost use case is interesting; they use @HREF and @ABOUT and don't expect navigation; they'd have to use ID to get navigation
Ben: do they use @HREF on A or on something else?
Mark: @HREF on LINK
Ben: could you discuss the @HREF, @RESOURCE question with them again, please?
ACTION: Mark get input from Joost on @HREF everywhere [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/21-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
Mark: RDF makes a distinction between resources
and information resources; @HREF doesn't permit that distinction
... @HREF means "navigable link" in HTML
Steven: it's only RDF that adds the interpretation that links don't have to be navigable
Mark: in a pre-RDFa world the difference
doesn't occur; you use @HREF to indicate navigation and you use RDF/XML for
everything else
... @RESOURCE has simple semantics and @HREF adds navigation to those
semantics
ACTION: Ben get further input from Creative Commons on @RESOURCE and @HREF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/21-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]
Ben: we're slipping today's deadline on test
cases
... July 12 to resolve issues
... I'll push a lot of these issues in email
next meeting: 28 June
[adjourned]