06:55:09 RRSAgent has joined #swd 06:55:09 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-irc 06:55:22 Meeting: SWD WG Amsterdam F2F 06:55:28 Zakim has joined #swd 06:55:32 zakim, this will be swd 06:55:32 ok, RalphS; I see SW_SWD(f2f)3:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 06:59:46 ShaneM has joined #swd 07:00:19 remind me again why I thought this was a good idea? 07:00:29 SW_SWD(f2f)3:00AM has now started 07:00:32 +Ralph 07:01:08 Shane :) 07:02:10 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/AmsterdamAgenda 07:06:29 +??P0 07:06:37 benadida has joined #swd 07:07:01 zakim, ??p0 is Ben 07:07:01 +Ben; got it 07:09:29 [off] we had a comment on xhtml-role that uses the word "complexify" - can i reject it just because that's not a word? ;-) 07:12:24 [off] all the more reason 07:13:07 + +043316aaaa 07:13:25 zakim, aaaa is me 07:13:25 +mhausenblas; got it 07:16:36 God's Country - but we don't like to spread that around. we have enough people here now 07:17:14 Shane :) 07:19:36 FYI - as anticipated we got a last call objection to using scoped values in attributes (for xhtml-role). We will carefully prepare a reply that we can use when we get similar objections on RDFa 07:19:59 +Guus 07:20:13 zakim, Guus is MeetingRoom 07:20:13 +MeetingRoom; got it 07:20:29 zakim, who is here? 07:20:29 On the phone I see Ralph, Ben, mhausenblas, MeetingRoom 07:20:30 On IRC I see benadida, ShaneM, Zakim, RRSAgent, RalphS, mhausenblas 07:20:58 zakim, MeetingRoom has Guus, Steven 07:20:58 +Guus, Steven; got it 07:22:06 Simone has joined #swd 07:22:07 +??P3 07:22:23 zakim, ??p3 is ShaneM 07:22:23 +ShaneM; got it 07:23:34 mute me 07:23:39 zakim, mute me 07:23:39 mhausenblas should now be muted 07:23:41 zakim, meetingroom also has Tom 07:23:41 +Tom; got it 07:26:58 zakim, meetingroom also has Ivan 07:26:58 +Ivan; got it 07:27:20 seanb has joined #swd 07:27:30 Morning! 07:27:36 Steven has joined #swd 07:27:40 We now have network in Amsterdam.... 07:28:01 ivan has joined #swd 07:28:02 Hi there all 07:28:05 ralph -- is there some special scribing convention for f2f? 07:28:07 Antoine has joined #swd 07:28:31 Hi Steven, good to 'see' you again ... 07:28:41 Hi there Michael 07:29:03 rrsagent, pointer? 07:29:03 See http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-irc#T07-29-03 07:29:06 markbirbeck has joined #swd 07:29:10 edsu has joined #swd 07:29:40 rrsagent, make log public 07:30:19 aliman has joined #swd 07:30:22 rrsagent, make minutes 07:30:22 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html Steven 07:31:45 Chair: Guus 07:32:06 berrueta has joined #swd 07:33:31 Sean, I've generally seen scribing f2f as pretty much like scribing a telecon 07:33:43 zakim, meetingroom also has Sean, Alistair 07:33:43 +Sean, Alistair; got it 07:33:53 scribenick: aliman 07:34:21 Zakim, passcode please? 07:34:21 the conference code is 79394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Simone 07:34:24 mark: follow agenda, put discussion of future to end 07:34:59 guus: come back to reviews later; first take on point, this group not decided on outcome status for RDFa; in charter, possibility to go rec track, not a decision yet. 07:35:50 ...proposal from RDFa TF is to go REC track. My main concern, whether there is sufficient people to carry this through. For me, recent progress of TF and also importance of work, I'm no in favour of going rec track. 07:35:58 ... Do we need to discuss this? 07:36:12 +[IPcaller] 07:36:16 s/I'm no/I'm now 07:36:21 Zakim, IPcaller is me 07:36:21 +Simone; got it 07:36:24 People who are not physically in the meeting, maybe you should say who you are and what your affiliations are 07:36:24 tom: no comment. there are these larger issues of overlap with XHTML 2, what did we decide to do about that? 07:36:33 zakim, who's on the phone? 07:36:33 On the phone I see Ralph, Ben, mhausenblas (muted), MeetingRoom, ShaneM, Simone 07:36:35 MeetingRoom has Guus, Steven, Tom, Ivan, Sean, Alistair 07:36:41 guus: we move that issue to end of discussion. it's in our charter, have to say about status, whether we move work or not. 07:36:45 [Ralph Swick, SWD staff contact] 07:36:58 (There are 11 in the room) 07:37:01 [Ralph Swick, SWD staff contact, calling today from Massachusetts] 07:37:16 Zakim, mute me please 07:37:16 Simone should now be muted 07:37:26 zakim, markbirbeck is also in MeetingRoom 07:37:26 I don't understand 'markbirbeck is also in MeetingRoom', Steven 07:37:33 guus has joined #swd 07:37:41 zakim, meetingroom also has Mark_Birbeck 07:37:41 +Mark_Birbeck; got it 07:37:46 :-) 07:37:49 tom: need to be specific about which deliverables on which track. WG needs to agree to bring syntax to REC track; then approve publication of syntax as WD; then look at other deliverables, use cases, test cases, then figure out what is intended process for each of those, then figure out rough schedule. If we do that, and figure out overlap with XHTML 2, then we've done our duty for RDFa today. 07:38:10 guus: tom says, if it's clear what goes rec track and what doesn't, then OK to go for rec track. 07:39:22 ben: we discussed in group. focus on important normative docs, therefore only doc which needs to go rec track is XHTML 1.1 syntax. other docs are important, give supporting information. but only normative doc is syntax. 07:39:28 ralph: proposal for other docs? 07:39:42 ben: primer will be note; test cases as supporting documentation. 07:39:59 (interruption as someone enters room) 07:40:45 guus: I'm not going to make a point about this. happy with scheme in OWL WG, full set of docs goes rec track as one package, including test cases and guide/primer. but if TF proposes to have just syntax as REC track, don't think it will make a big difference in practice. 07:40:54 ivan: GRDDL published primer as NOTE. 07:41:12 ... depends on what TF feels is achievable in time frame ... and time frame is not long. 07:41:36 [I was going to make the same point Ivan just made; more SemWeb specs have had primers as REC but most recent chose to make primer a Note] 07:41:42 guus: any more discussion? [no] propose this WG agrees RDFa to go rec track, given that syntax doc will be rec track doc. Any objections? 07:41:49 ... ben ralph? 07:42:20 ralph: I'm ok with that. preference was, to say primer might as well be rec track too, because going to be reviewed and published in sync with syntax. but am satisfied with primer not being rec. 07:42:30 s/. pref/. My pref/ 07:42:41 +1 07:42:44 +1 07:42:47 guus: syntax doc go rec track, then at later stage another doc could become part of package. make minimal decision now. no objections. 07:42:58 +1 !!! 07:43:19 +1 07:43:19 RESOLUTION: to put RDFa syntax on rec track, other RDFa docs to W3C Note. 07:43:54 :-) 07:43:54 guus: proposal no. 2 on table, that SWDWG approves publication of XHTML 1.1 RDFa Syntax as public WD. 07:43:56 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0058.html Ed 07:44:01 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0033.html Diego 07:44:10 s/as public/as First Public/ 07:44:30 ... Usually have message with how comments of reviewers were handled. Let's have round with reviewers. 07:44:50 zakim, unmute me 07:44:50 mhausenblas should no longer be muted 07:44:56 Steven has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/AmsterdamAgenda 07:45:48 [Ed summarizing his review] 07:45:55 Ed: In general, don't have a lot of DTD experience, so couldn't review that part. In general, this is great stuff, glad it's going to rec. Because I'm new to some of this, the CURIE I found some confusion as to whether CURIE defined here or in another syntax doc. 07:46:18 guus: what is status of CURIEs in this doc? part of this doc, or outside? 07:46:22 I think Mark can take this one 07:46:58 CURIE's are defined in the spec at: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070927/#s_curies 07:47:10 mark: pragmatic approach, CURIEs is a concept we need elsewhere, e.g. in role document, which went to last call last friday. So idea of something which is qname but not qname, needed elsewhere. 07:47:11 zakim, meetingroom also has Ed 07:47:11 +Ed; got it 07:47:48 rrsagent, make minutes 07:47:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html mhausenblas 07:47:56 ... like to persuade other groups e.g. SPARQL to use CURIEs (longer term thing). In short term, confusion because hedging out bets. If CURIEs don't go further, it will be in the RDFa document. If CURIEs do advance, will refer to another document. 07:48:08 guus: so making sure CURIEs are not on your critical path. 07:48:13 [do SWD folks in the room understand that Mark and Steven are here representing the XHTML 2 Working Group, as part of the RDFa Task Force?] 07:48:42 mark: Yes, and trying to keep in sync. Section on CURIEs in RDFa has got clearer since looking at other problems (e.g. with role in XHTML 2) 07:48:45 [They do now :-)] 07:49:06 ivan: what is realistic assumption of CURIEs becoming REC in its own right before April? 07:49:13 mark: what would stop it? 07:49:51 ... in terms of document, what is says ... when we're happy with explanation of CURIEs in RDFa ... not a lot of work to do. 07:50:25 [I support the XHTML 2 plan to keep RDFa independent of a *separate* document on CURIEs] 07:50:28 stephen: mark summed it up. we don't want it on critical path. but this work is developing concept to usable state. good to develop here, then pull out to another spec. but if can't then doesn't matter. 07:51:15 guus: go for now, assume we discuss planning, but planning will be tight. for next 6 months, at least in candidate rec. how realistic? from my perspective, seems very unlikely. last call document, in two or three months, chances are almost zero. 07:51:51 ivan: yes, except my timing would be tougher. my goal to have as rec before beijiing. even tho candidate rec very short, last call still needed this year. 07:52:52 ... decision on CURIEs in or out is concrete. technical content in last call cannot be changed. (cannot remove section) ... so need to decide before december. I think should not do that, we should keep CURIE spec inside RDFa syntax. 07:53:01 stephen: not a problem. 07:53:09 s/ph/v/ 07:53:52 I feel the CURIE rules are pretty simple, and had planned to send the CURIE spec to last call in the next few weeks. But I dont mind leaving the text in the RDFa spec. I can undertake to keep them in sync. I do it all the time. 07:54:01 zakim, mute me please 07:54:01 mhausenblas should now be muted 07:54:02 ralph: i think ivan said what i meant to say ... challenge to keep any future separate spec consistent with RDFa. but in future version of RDFa can rip out whatever duplicates separate curie spec; but for now, work without separate curie spec. 07:54:14 ivan: close the door to have separate spec, pragmatically. 07:54:22 mark: why? 07:54:46 RalphS, you wanted to comment in case Steven doesn't clarify and to clarify non-dependency 07:55:20 ... there is now one sentence which says, this may come out into separate spec. If we think CURIEs in RDFa is nailed, if we then updated separate spec, would there be any problem if we then refer to it? 07:55:28 q? 07:56:09 ivan: CURIE doc which you put out separately, would go to a number of other groups, not semweb groups, might have different requirements, could hold up RDFa for no good reason. can only refer to docs one step behind. let's say CURIE doc is delayed, then you are stuck with RDFa. 07:56:26 steven: if CURIE spec is causing aggravation, cannot move RDFa forward. 07:56:39 ivan: RDFa cannot be REC until CURIE is proposed REC. 07:56:50 steven: good for RDFa, good for CURIEs. 07:57:00 q+ 07:57:05 mark: made it block which could be removed. works both ways. 07:57:32 ben: follow mark's lead on this, sounds good. 07:59:12 ralph: importatn to decouple these. could include in status of doc, section which says "if curie languag of following section is published separately, intent is that this section will cite that". Ivan made crucial point, if separate specification is dependent, has to be close to end of recommendation. we need to decouple them. easy for us to find language for proposed edited recommendation for RDFa to say, we've removed this section because now in separate spec 08:00:18 RESOLUTION: resolved that, in preparing last call doc for RDFa, decouple RDFa syntax document from any separate CURIE document. 08:00:34 q+ 08:00:45 ack Ralph 08:00:57 +1 08:01:03 +1 08:01:05 ralph: support this resolutionm, will save us time over next few months. can change our minds later, if XHTML WG puts out separate CURIE doc. 08:01:26 zakim, meetingroom also has Diego 08:01:26 +Diego; got it 08:01:36 ShaneM: I was confused by that too, although isn't that just a draft? 08:01:50 diego: I think, if we keep CURIEs inside RDFa syntax doc, then think carefully where to place it. it was some work to read the document, because use curies, then later read what curies are. 08:02:21 guus: but this is editorial comment. objections to resolution to decouple? [no] resolved by consensus. 08:02:27 s/ShaneM:/ShaneM,/ 08:02:43 ed: CURIE thing was my main comment. i had some trouble in steps of processing section. 08:02:58 guus: asked you as potential user of RDFa, whteher this is a description you could use? 08:03:07 [Ed, Shane; I believe the XHTML 2 WG's intent is to update the CURIE WD after experience with RDFa] 08:03:39 ed: yes, thought it was very useful. diego's comments tightened up a few parts of it, but thought it veruy useful. 08:04:01 ... made me want to dig into implementation, see how things were working. 08:04:25 guus: any points in review you consider critical, anything which needs to be answered, or only editorial discretion. 08:04:29 ...? 08:04:36 ed: nothing critical. 08:04:47 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0033.html Diego'S review 08:04:57 diego: comments on titles, request to move paragraphs to new section. Main comments are related with processing rule... 08:05:01 s/Diego'S/Diego's 08:06:09 ... processing rules are clear, get the idea how to process, but some points e.g. we should make clear only elements are actually processed by the rules, not clear at the moment (text nodes, comments?). If you look at code of ivan's implementation, where it goes down in tree, has if element node, then go in [?] 08:06:34 mark: used to say meta - text - meta. in my implementation, bring text node up. but it's right [what diego said]. 08:07:23 guus: going to decide now to publish new WD. doesn't need to be completely finished, just need considerable progress, and nothing there which will embarrass us. so focus on anything which could block publication as WD, and anything which can be left to editorial discretion. 08:08:18 diego: main point is processing rule 6, about how evaluation context is transmitted from parent to child. a mistake in rule, at least something which is not clear. have suggested some possible fixes, would be happy with any of them. would be happy to see doc go forward, if this comment is addressed, the rest are minor comments. 08:08:22 q? 08:09:01 ivan: let's separate two things. there are mistakes, things to change in the doc. Decision to publish should not depend on that level of techincal detail. 08:09:22 guus: but that is your opinion. if diego thinks that is serious, as a reviewer, that is his opinion. 08:09:53 q+ 08:10:01 mark: both sets of comments were really useful, showed really good understanding. absolutely accept if there confusions, then genuine confusions. then both curies and stack issue need to be addressed. 08:10:13 guus: too much work to block quick publication? 08:10:16 q+ to recommend proceeding 08:10:31 mark: no, irony is implementations are better than processing description. 08:10:54 guus: summarise for this minutes as the "stack issue" ... so diego main thing you want fixed before publication? 08:11:18 diego: if fix comment about stack, then happy to publish as WD 08:11:56 [could the Chair or scribe clarify, please, how much fixing Diego is asking for] 08:12:08 guus: assume we have one more WD before last call. directly after this meeting publish new WD. give public change to comment. i.e. publish within 1-2 weeks. then in 1-2 months, go for last call. 08:12:44 ralph: which of diego's stack suggestions are critical? accept mark 08:13:09 RalphS: diego's concerns were specifically about the 'stack' 08:13:26 ... long time since publish update to any RDFa spec. like to see us publish. hopefully can fix in next WD. looking for clarification from deigo on specific pieces of the stack section which he thinks are critical. 08:13:31 q? 08:13:42 ack RalphS 08:13:42 RalphS, you wanted to recommend proceeding 08:14:42 ivan: that was essence of my comment as well. try to be pragtmatic. hit publication moritorium in few weeks. if have to edit, hit moritoritum, then timing may go off. my preference is, even if there are mistakes, anything whiich can be fixed in 1-2 days should be fixed, otherwise publish, then try to get to last call in december. rather than get problems into doc now. 08:15:36 mark: split diego's comment into two parts: (1) idea of stack not good way to explain; (2) it's wrong. Suggest we follow your advice, still use idea of stack, but fix the error. before publication. 08:16:06 [good; if we can tweak the words in the editors' draft to fix a bug, then consider a bigger rewrite in a future draft, that would be nice] 08:16:07 diego: agree with ivan's point. ok to publish as it is, if we document that there open issues on the document. 08:16:39 seanb has joined #swd 08:17:14 PROPOSED: to publish new version of RDFa syntax document at the earliest possible convenience, no later than moritorium, taking into account comments of reviewers as far as possible. 08:18:09 This will be the first PWD, so I will request a shortname 08:18:23 PROPOSED: to publish RDFa syntax document as First Public Working Draft at the earliest possible convenience, no later than moritorium, taking into account comments of reviewers as far as possible. 08:18:59 PROPOSED: to publish RDFa syntax document as First Public Working Draft at the earliest possible convenience, no later than moritorium, taking into account comments of reviewers as far as possible, adding notes where there are open issues. 08:19:17 +1 08:19:28 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Oct/0033.html October publication moratorium 08:19:33 RESOLVED 08:19:46 rrsagent, draft minutes 08:19:46 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html mhausenblas 08:19:57 benadida: coffee just arrived here funnily enough :) 08:19:59 +1 Ben :) 08:20:21 Just like to thanks the reviewers...very good work. 08:20:33 guus: move to next agenda item. 08:21:02 RESOLUTION: to publish RDFa syntax document as First Public Working Draft at the earliest possible convenience, no later than moritorium, taking into account comments of reviewers as far as possible, adding notes where there are open issues. 08:21:31 guus: next proposal, WG approves new version of primer for WD. 08:22:31 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20070918/ RDFa Primer 08:23:03 ben: the primer has been updated to match the syntax, ??? has been updated to be less technical, more about events and contact information. now matches latest syntax. if don't have official reviews. do think pubolish new version soon is useful. 08:23:28 guus: first we need reviews, before publish again. postpone decision until we have two reviews from outside TF. is that a problem? 08:23:48 [oops, Guus is right -- we forgot to ask for SWD reviewers for Primer] 08:23:54 ben: we did get at least review from ? although don't know if that counts. urgent to get new version out, so need volunteers today. 08:24:01 from Bob DuCharme 08:24:35 s/, ???/. It has/ 08:24:41 guus: volunteers? one review would be ok. antoine, would you be willing to do again? 08:25:09 ... telecon in two weeks time. ben, proposal would be to have reviews by telecon in two weeks time. 08:25:22 ralph: october 31 is last day we can ask for publication. 08:25:35 guus: two weeks, ok with you [antoine]? 08:25:39 antoine: yes 08:26:04 guus: syntax doc, all changes are now at your discretion. 08:26:19 ... back to the primer. 08:26:36 ben: ... 08:26:43 [[31 October, 12pm ET: Deadline for publication request before moratorium ]] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2007AprJun/0104.html 08:26:52 guus: ben is fine with decision on 31st, and will have edits in time for moritorium 08:27:00 note, that's 9am Ben's time 08:27:06 ralph: that is 31 9am 08:27:12 ben: so 30th then 08:27:25 guus: we have a volunteer - antoine has volunteered. 08:27:50 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Sep/0054.html Primer ready for review 08:27:56 ACTION: antoine to review RDFa Primer before next telecon (within two weeks). 08:29:03 guus: next agenda item ... last three proposals all to do with status of documents. 08:29:28 ... understand TF is in favour of publishing syntax as rec, rest as note. Timing will be, publish others as note once rec is finished? 08:29:33 ivan: or goes to proposal 08:30:11 q+ 08:30:12 guus: note is end status. for the moment can stay as WD. notes only published once rec is final. e.g. if in rec process, need new test cases, then need to reopen note if published. note is end status in W3C. 08:30:15 zakim, unmute me 08:30:15 mhausenblas should no longer be muted 08:30:19 q+ to speak to 'Note' status 08:30:21 ivan: GRDDL published like that 08:30:28 Test Cases are not a note 08:30:33 +1 08:30:37 mark: how does that affect our agreement timing? 08:30:57 guus: see proposal to publish primer as note, seems unlikely. minimum 6 months for rec, so also minimum timing for note. 08:31:56 I believe we meant to put on track to become a Note, not make it a note today 08:32:04 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#maturity-levels Maturity Levels 08:32:23 ralph: I think guus is right. note status is something like last call for rec doc. WG believes it's done, and doesn't expect to change. We can issue a new version of a note, but publishing as a note is really a statement to public that WG is done, doesn't expect any more work. I think guus is right, we should leave as WD, until confident unlikely to change any more. Once syntax doc is proposed rec, then freeze primer as a note. proposed rec stage time for note. 08:32:35 guus: did we publish RDFa use cases as WD? 08:32:38 ben: yes 08:32:47 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xhtml-rdfa-scenarios-20070330/ 08:32:58 guus: we can have updated versions if sufficient changes. las WD? [30 march] 08:33:16 we have not updated the use cases doc 08:33:17 ... link on latest version doesn't go to previous WD 08:33:31 ... document package: syntax doc, primer, use cases, test cases. 08:33:36 ... has that been published? 08:33:45 ralph: TF has not proposed formal test cases doc. 08:33:51 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/ Test Suite 08:33:57 ivan: test cases on wiki. don't know about plan to turn into TR doc. 08:34:03 guus: no plan to make test cases a WD? 08:34:06 ivan: don't think so. 08:34:20 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFaTC TC approval 08:34:23 steven: test cases there to support going to CR. so not normal to take that to rec. 08:34:30 q+ to note on the RDFa TC 08:34:41 ivan: some groups have done that, choice of the group. RDF, OWL like that, other groups not. group decision, there is no rule. 08:34:49 guus: discussion on test cases as WD or not. 08:35:19 q? 08:35:32 ralph: question of coverage and editorial time. if had the time, and test cases cover good part of spec, then should publish. TF didn't expect to do a test suite that would have enough coverage to justify editorial effort. 08:35:38 .... we have added tests over time. 08:35:53 RalphS, you wanted to speak to 'Note' status 08:36:02 ack me 08:36:02 mhausenblas, you wanted to note on the RDFa TC 08:36:04 guus: for moment, package to publish is: syntax (rec); primer (note); use cases (note). test cases informal doc. 08:36:09 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/ 08:36:51 michael: acknowledge raolph. test cases at link above ... ??? 08:37:07 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/ Test Suite 08:37:09 guus: michael agreed, test cases on web site, not going to be a formal document 08:37:27 michael: doesn't need to be formal doc (W3C TR), no. 08:38:17 guus: consensus on this. 08:38:42 ... proposal that RDFa primer be published as note, don't decide now. 08:38:51 ben: should agree that RDFa syntax will go rec. 08:39:10 guus: we have resolved that syntax will go to rec, haven't resolved that primer will go to note. 08:39:41 ... up to TF ... 08:39:43 Yes we did 08:39:54 -> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-irc.html#T07-43-19 08:39:55 ivan: guus wants to keep it open for TF to include other docs in rec 08:40:05 guus: ok to keep our resolution, other docs to note. 08:40:23 ... then we should record our intention to publish primer as note 08:40:28 rrsagent, please draft minutes 08:40:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html RalphS 08:40:46 ben: ok to leave open, but make sure it's ok for only syntax to be rec. 08:40:57 guus: yes, in earlier resolution. 08:41:04 http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-irc#T07-43-19 08:41:45 PROPOSAL: that use cases and primer are published as WG notes around time that syntax reaches recommendation status 08:41:47 i/follow agenda, put/Topic: RDFa/ 08:41:55 +1 08:41:57 q+ 08:42:00 +1 08:42:05 guus: good to have syntax published without primer in final state. 08:42:17 +1 to proposed rec 08:42:22 +1 08:42:39 ralph: change to "proposed rec" rather than "rec"? do it when when WG asks for transistion to proposed rec, then should fix [other stuff] 08:42:52 ... we should have everything done by proposed rec. 08:43:16 s/fix /freeze / 08:43:20 PROPOSAL: that RDFa use cases and primer are published as WG notes not later that syntax reaches recommendation status 08:43:33 +1 08:43:43 "post-it notes?" 08:43:43 +1 08:43:49 s/notes /Notes / 08:44:06 steven: not yet asking for short names? 08:44:12 ralph: already have short names. 08:44:18 guus: published once already. 08:44:32 RESOLUTION: that RDFa use cases and primer are published as WG Notes not later that syntax reaches recommendation status 08:44:36 rrsagent, please draft minutes 08:44:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html RalphS 08:45:00 -> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070927/#uaconf 08:45:12 guus: proposal that test cases be used as supporting documentation... 08:45:18 michael: ??? 08:45:31 q+ 08:45:37 q+ to clarify shortname 08:46:40 guus: test suite comment in RDFa syntax ... 08:47:20 guus: no "MUST" dependent on test cases I hope. If not the case, then i'm ok. 08:47:22 ack R 08:47:22 RalphS, you wanted to clarify shortname 08:47:28 Ralph: we already have approved shortnames the primer and use cases documents; our WG formal request to publish Syntax as First Public Working Draft will be when Syntax gets an approved shortname 08:48:10 ralph: wanted to clarify, we have three short names in our recent resolution. already have approved short names for firts two, when make request for syntax for third will get a short name. 08:48:12 what is about -> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax 08:48:24 steven: no objection to request transition? 08:48:35 guus: I'm ok. 08:49:15 no it is not there.... 08:49:48 guus: only item left on agenda, is thing we started with. any other issues? 08:50:17 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax is 404, so we can't say it's been approved. But I recommend that's the shortname we propose and I do not expect any disapproval 08:50:36 rrsagent, pointer? 08:50:36 See http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-irc#T08-50-36 08:50:39 tom: two things. helful to set milestones, so we have targets to work towards. secondly, raise issue of wiki pages - there is comparison of charter milestones with progress in deliverables page, this should be kept up to date. [another thing?] 08:51:43 see you in 9 minutes 08:51:55 -mhausenblas 08:51:56 rrsagent, please draft minutes 08:51:56 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/08-swd-minutes.html RalphS 08:54:09 Request for publication sent 08:59:15 -Simone 09:04:45 guus: (1) swd vs. xhtml WG; (2) planning; (3) admin, wiki pages etc. 09:05:06 scribe: seanb 09:05:42 +??P1 09:05:53 zakim, P1 is me 09:05:53 sorry, mhausenblas, I do not recognize a party named 'P1' 09:06:03 Guus: personal inclination to go as before. Task force has two hosts. Need to think who then takes decisions 09:06:08 zakim, ??P1 is me 09:06:08 +mhausenblas; got it 09:06:25 Ivan: From activity POV, problem is messaging side. 09:06:34 ...RDFa document should bear explicit SW activity stamp 09:06:57 zakim, mute me 09:06:57 mhausenblas should now be muted 09:07:11 ...important for community acceptance 09:07:30 ...pragmatically don't know consequences if document published jointly. 09:07:45 ...do both groups then have to issue the same resolutions? 09:07:58 ...what if groups disagree?? 09:08:04 q+ 09:08:17 q+ 09:08:34 Steven: If there's disagreement it's problematic anyway. 09:08:40 ...happy with joint work 09:09:03 ...preference to do it in two. 09:09:06 ack r 09:09:38 Ralph: No problem. If there's disagreement about spec, regardless 09:10:03 ...then we have to react. Ivan's inventing a problem. 09:10:06 ack m 09:10:27 Mark: Task Force ok at collating and representing both communities. 09:10:32 ...worked well so far. 09:11:01 Guus: Group started widely spread. Social consensus has appeared. 09:11:40 [yes, the RDFa Task Force is the critical administrative thing that made this joint WG work practical] 09:11:52 Mark: Twin approach is good for a marketing POV. 09:12:06 ...good to be seen as not coming from SW community 09:12:36 s/from/just from 09:13:05 Ralph: the only real novel question I see in this joint REC-track work is in the Director's Decision on the relevant transition requests. Let's let W3C staff deal with that technicality and not worry about it as a WG. 09:13:13 Guus: See consensus here. Only need to see operational issues 09:13:46 q+ 09:14:01 +??P4 09:14:07 Zakim, ??P4 is me 09:14:07 +Simone; got it 09:14:10