See also: IRC log, previous 2007-09-14
Steven: today is the 25th anniversary of the smiley
Manu: that was yesterday
Steven: Manu is right
ACTION: [DONE] Mark find a reference for SAX or clarify the "SAX-like" language [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/14-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
ACTION: [WITHDRAWN] Mark find language for canonicalization of markup in plain literals [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/14-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]
ACTION: [DONE] Shane create a conformance section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/14-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
ACTION: [DONE] Ben collect all the non-binding resolutions into a mail message and call for a vote [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/14-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
ACTION: [DONE] Ben research whether "Can an RDF-conformant parser generate additional triples than those specified in the Syntax specification?" is an already closed issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/14-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
ACTION: [DONE] Ben add an isbn: resource example to the Primer to illustrate @resource overriding @href [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/30-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
Ben: not ideally integrated, but I did add a short example
ACTION: Ben to look into Science Commons use case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/11-htmltf-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: [DONE] Ben to recontact implementors Elias, MarkB, triplr [and Fabien] and post their implementations to http://esw.w3.org/topic/RDFa#Implementations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/02-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
ACTION: [DONE] Ben to work test cases 31 and 32 into primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/16-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
ACTION: Ben, Mark, Elias, and other implementors to add xml:lang support [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/23-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUES]
Ben: I haven't done mine yet
ACTION: Michael look for a more semantically correct predicate for tests 42-45 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES]
Michael: I looked into it
... my conclusion was that foaf:depiction is semantically correct
... I haven't reported this yet
ACTION: Michael make sure to confirm a design for checking that the ASK SPARQL queries evaluate (yes/no) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]
Michael: in light of recent conversation about named graphs, this may change
ACTION: Michael to create "Microformats done right -- unambiguous taxonomies via RDF" on the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/23-rdfa-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]
Ben: goal for today is to decide whether or not to send these editors' drafts to the SWD WG for review
<mhausenblas> Syntax
Shane: to my mind there's nothing but dotting
i's and crossing t's before handing it to the WG
... definition of XHTML module that supports RDFa is major task for this
week
... I did all the suggested editorial changes
Mark: regarding @instanceof in the syntax
spec,
... I introduced "current element identifier" into the text
... I currently say current element identifier is set by one of these
attributes and @instanceof sets the rdf:type of the current element
TomB: Regarding the A'dam meeting
... how much time will be needed
... need to have an overview on what other SWD members need to look at
Ben: By next Tuesday we'll have a frozen version of the documents
that is the Primer and the Syntax
Mark: I plan to attend the f2f in person but I'd prefer that the RDFa discussion take place on Monday
Tom: RDFa currently on the agenda for Tuesday,
but I'll talk with Guus about this
... the WG will probably need a morning and afternoon session for SKOS
... it would be awkward to insert RDFa between these two sessions
Ben: I plan to attend by phone
... so a morning (in Amsterdam) would work well for me
Ben: we'd probably want to discuss the strategy
for RDFa
... Mark and Steven would be good at doing this
... so up to 3 hours on the agenda if possible
<Steven> How many people will be at the FtF?
Mark: I'd like to discuss the broader vision too
Tom: length of agenda depends on what sort of
technical feedback is wanted
... if the group is being asked to form an opinion on technical issues,
then
... (1) the readings need to be listed on the agenda in advance and
... (2) sufficient time for discussion needs to be scheduled
... so a demonstration of technology might help in the discussion
... depends on the questions you want to ask of the WG -- will they be asked
to give an opinion on technical issues?
... about a dozen WG participants will be present
Ralph: a tutorial, if given, should be brief; we expect the WG participants to read
Mark: the current Syntax editors' draft is
clear that @instanceof won't simply inherit from the element but will use
@about, @rev, @href, etc.
... and currently gives priority to @about
... there is one section that needs more work; 6.2.2.
... now that Syntax has been merged with the modularization document this
needs polishing
... won't be deeply confusing to the WG but somethings could be clearer
... should take me only 2-3 hours to fix that
Ben: what about @rel without prefix values?
Shane: this is listed in the issue list in the document
Mark: I can work on 6.2.2.2 tomorrow morning
Shane: when I put up a new editors' draft tomorrow, it will have a diff to the previous draft
PROPOSE: we ship the Syntax editors' draft to the SWD WG at COB tomorrow
<mhausenblas> +1
RESOLUTION: we ship the Syntax editors' draft to the SWD WG at COB tomorrow
-- Primer
<mhausenblas> Primer
Ben: wasn't as much work to do on the Primer;
lots of comments but easy to integrate
... I want to highlight the markup to show what was added in each step
... I've integrated all the comments except highlighting markup and an
example of @href on a non-anchor
... I haven't found a way to work @href on non-A in an easy way; may leave
this to a case study
Manu: this seems like a corner case; the Primer is pretty good as it stands
Ralph: ship without it
<mhausenblas> +1
RESOLUTION: ship the Primer editors' draft to the SWD WG at COB today
Michael: [cites DanC's recent message on conformance testing]
Mark: I'd not been thinking about extra triple
use case in terms of conformance
... today I started thinking about using named graphs
... suppose RDFa put all its triples into a kind of default named graph
... any extra triples my tool wants to generate should go into a separate
graph
Ben: this sounds like an interesting technical solution but is there a more generic viewpoint; e.g. a switch in the tool to turn off extra triples?
Mark: testing is only one scenario
... suppose I want to do more processing on IMG -- spot IMG elements and put
more into the triple store
... in the future we might decide that there's a mapping between IMG and
dcmi:image
Ben: instead of specifying a named graph solution, I'm suggesting a mode in which the implementation generates only the triples specified
Mark: we could use a different terminology than
named graph but with this kind of approach we can avoid future conflicts; the
triples are in separate buckets
... we can say 'the default graph should look like this ...'
... the test case queries could stay the same but could also be much
tougher
<Zakim> Steven, you wanted to ask what the test suite tests
Steven: the test suite has to be clear about
what it's testing
... I don't believe it is a conformance tester
... rather, it's there to be able to demonstrate CR exit criteria
... we're actually checking that the specification is consistent and matches
what the implementations actually do
Shane: W3C doesn't actually have a concept of 'conformance testing'
<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to be very conservative about 'named graphs'
Ralph: I don't want to be defining named
graphs
... or default graphs for the purposes of an RDFa spec
Mark: the idea of 'named graph' seems to be a
way to define a list of triples
... we could say that RDFa produces one or more graphs
Ralph: seems a huge can of worms
Mark: I have sympathy for the concern of how
extra triples are characterized
... and how implementations that create additional triples today may be
protected from future versions of RDFa spec
... and DanC's message suggests that we cite the GRDDL conclusion
<mhausenblas> W3C Test FAQ
Mark: we were not planning to put the test
cases on the REC track anyway
... I'm prepared to make whatever changes to the tests that the TF
requires
Manu: the named graphs concept is likely to
become an issue much sooner than we may realize
... FireFox operator will raise this question of partitioned triple stores
... we can already see namespace conflicts between microformats and RDFa
Ben: perhaps we're looking at the wrong level
of abstraction
... consider FireFox with multiple parsers
... the results from each parser may need to be partitioned
... this is perhaps a best practices issue, not an RDFa issue
Manu: implementors will look for some direction
Ben: but implementors won't expect the RDFa spec to say how to partition from, e.g., E-RDF
Manu: since the spec doesn't give any direction
at all, we end up discussing it over and over
... it's not this Working Group's job to define this behavior but
implementors will need something
Mark: perhaps all we need is to indicate that the RDFa processor says these triples are generated and if the implementation generates more it may need a partitioning mechanism
ACTION: Manu draft some partitioning language that is technology-neutral [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
Michael: I volunteer to create graphics on request
Ben: I see opportunities for technical graphics
in the Syntax spec
... I'd love to have a graphic in the Primer
Manu: perhaps HTML with the RDFa highlighted for, e.g. FOAF, and a business card with the same information highlighted
Ben: ideally the example would be something that doesn't also have a simple microformat representation
Michael: FOAF is appealing because most people know about FOAF
Ben: thanks, Mark and Shane, for hitting this deadline of the WG f2f
next telecon: Thursday, 27 Sep
[adjourned]