See also: IRC log, previous 2008-01-10
<msporny> 1) Action Items
<msporny> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/10-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
<msporny> 2) Chaining completion by @href and @src: what is everyone's take on this?
<msporny> 3) non-prefixed RELs: putting aside the issue of *which spec doc* the
<msporny> reserved words are defined in, for now, it's probably worth voting on
<msporny> Manu's proposal, if there is enough of a quorum:
<msporny> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0152.html
<msporny> I vote yes.
<msporny> 4) Test Cases: any updates we need to cover?
-> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/10-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
ACTION: [PENDING] Ben followup with Fabien on getting his RDFa GRDDL transform transferred to W3C [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: [PENDING] Ben to add status of various implementations on rdfa.info [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: [PENDING] Ben to respond to comment on follow-your-nose [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: [PENDING] Ben to set up a proper scribe schedule [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
propose to have a look at http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/implementation-report/
ACTION: [PENDING] 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]
ACTION: [PENDING] Ralph followup with Dublin Core on what's going on with their namespace URI [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
Manu: Regarding Syntax document
... establishing subject
Mark explains current processing with hanging
Manu: For example @resource vs, @about (feedback from one of the developers)
Mark: One starts learning a new language should
start with basic stuff as 'I want triple'
... IMO we have to explain it well rather than removing features (even if
verbose)
... we have basically agreed on chaining, so if we are about to remove
features
... we would end up with a bunch of exceptions
<Ralph> [apologies for tardiness]
Mark: When preserving legacy values, one has to take care of the whole picture
Ralph: Also author awareness is an issue
... this is a new language, but people familiar with previous languages
should not get into too much trouble
Steven reminds on the topic
Manu: Sent out three questions to the list
... so there are two more
... <img />
... @src setting the subject
... and cases where it doesn't
Mark: In my model, every attrib can be
subject/object
... so far no distinction between @about, etc.
Manu: One has to understand the processing model to 'get it' what happens
Mark: @src issue does not fundamentally touch my model
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/implementation-report/ IR
cf http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/impl-report-ql SPARQL implementation report
Michael: my idea was to run the test cases and
report which tests pass and which fail
... is it necessary to have a call where all those listed in the table can
participate?
<msporny> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/
<msporny> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0152.html
Michael: on hold TC http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFaTC#head-0b21a2e0fed4fecba83df959548e4a4f7b2bb45c-7
-- tests 2 & 3
Michael: 2 and 3 have meta in the body, which is not allowed in this version of RDFa, so we'll drop those
<mhausenblas> +1
-- test 4
Manu: test 4 -- we've also decided to disallow xml:base, so test 4 should be dropped
RESOLUTION: drop tests 2 and 3
Mark: I'd thought we'd made xml:base
optional
... but I'm sure the answer is in the spec
<markbirbeck> "If a language includes @xml:base [XMLBASE], an RDFa parser for that host language must process it, and use its value to set [base]."
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0014.html Re: Test Case #73: @about with relative URL using XHTML @xml:base
Michael: so we could change test 4 to show that no triples are generated
x/the generated triples ignore xml:base/the generated triples ignore xml:base/
Manu: the href needs to change to illustrate this?
Michael: I'll fix test 4 to show what should be generated, with xml:base ignored
-- test 16: Blank node, explicit
Ralph: what was test 16 supposed to test?
Michael: see comment from Elias -- apparently
tests @about referring to a bnode
... propose to drop 16
Manu: test 64 tests bnode ref in a more atomic way
RESOLUTION: test 16 dropped