ERT WG

WCAG 2.0 publication announcement

http://www.w3.org/WAI/#x20071211a

SAZ: WCAG 2.0 published as a last call working draft
... important milestone, please read it
... hopefully it meets your expectations

Content-in-RDF title

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Dec/0006

CV: missing content of _what_
... maybe "content of resources"?

JK: "Web resources" is too narrow

<CarlosV> Resource: a network data object identified by a URI [RFC3986]. This definition is adapted from the definition of resource in [RFC2616].

CV: "Resources Content Representation in RDF"

JK: this definition restricts to objects identified by URIs, this is not always the case

CI: reminds me of last meeting, it's about the definition of content
... agree with johannes, don't like the URI restriction

CV: data objects?

CI: sounds more formal but not much clearer

CV: title doesn't reflect what the document says

SAZ: what does this document say?

CV: describes some resources and data objects

CI: attempt to find several kinds of representations of content we can find on the Web
... title can't say it all, document should be explanatory

JK: like data objects, if can get rid of URI restriction

SAZ: "Representing Data Content in RDF"

<CarlosV> Title: RDF Representation of Resources Content

JK: wouldn't use "resource", RDF is already a resource description
... using the same word twice but with different meaning is tricky

SAZ: "Representing Objects in RDF"

<CarlosV> Title: Data Objects' Content in RDF

CI: as an object-oriented progaramer it is confusing

SAZ: "Content of Data Objects in RDF"
... "Representing Content of Data Objects in RDF"
... who cannout live with "Representing Content in RDF"
... who cannot live with "Representing Content in RDF"?

CV: don't like verb at the beginning

SAZ: what about "Content Representations in RDF"?

JK: like the verb better

SAZ: propose to use "Representing Content in RDF" for now, and start filling out the document
... it should be narritive, and explain the different ways in which content can be represented in RDF
... we may be able to get EOWG to look at our doucments before publication, and review them editorially
... this does however mean delaying publication until the documents are reviewed

RESOLUTION: accept "Representing Content in RDF" as the title

JK: if a different name is proposed, this could replicate changes throughout the document
... for example the class names etc

<JohannesK> CV: we could publish as editor's draft

SAZ: can publish as editor's or internal draft, but need more consensus within the group before we should publish on /TR

DOM-in-RDF

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Dec/0011.html

JK: this is the DOM Core, there are others in the suite of specification

CV: are we sure we want to go down this road?
... DOM core may not be that hard, but would be incomplete without the rest

CI: is this dom level 3?

JK: yes, should be

CI: was hoping for something more basic, maybe just a placeholder
... not necessarily the whole DOM here

<carlosI> just a basic set

<carlosI> e.g.

<carlosI> dom:node

<carlosI> dom:document

<carlosI> dom:element

<carlosI> dom:attribute

<carlosI> and dom:text

CV: inclined to say no, don't go down that path

JK: think of the use cases

SAZ: first question, is what is the effort required?

secondly, do we need to do it now vs in a later version?

third, will these features be implemented by the group?

SAZ: think about it, we'll talk more about it next week