15:59:24 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 15:59:24 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-irc 15:59:32 rrsagent, make log public 15:59:35 markbirbeck has joined #rdfa 15:59:37 zakim, this will be rdfa 15:59:37 ok, Steven; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute 16:00:03 Meeting: Weekly RDFa Teleconference 16:00:07 Chair: Ben 16:00:16 zakim, dial steven-617 16:00:16 zakim, dial steven-617 16:00:16 ok, Steven; the call is being made 16:00:17 ok, Steven; the call is being made 16:00:18 SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started 16:00:19 +Steven 16:00:39 Ralph has joined #rdfa 16:00:47 +Ralph 16:00:53 morning, Ralph :) 16:01:37 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0259 16:01:46 Steven has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0259 16:02:22 -> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/17-rdfa-minutes.html previous 2008-01-17 16:02:24 hmm... why can't I call in? RDFA# - passcode is not valid? 16:02:32 +??P42 16:02:44 skype issue, Manu? 16:02:47 Zakim, P42 is me 16:02:47 sorry, mhausenblas, I do not recognize a party named 'P42' 16:02:54 perhaps....? 16:02:54 Zakim, ??P42 is me 16:02:54 +mhausenblas; got it 16:02:55 +[IPcaller] 16:03:07 zakim, ipcaller is Manu 16:03:07 +Manu; got it 16:03:08 -> Previous http://www.w3.org/2008/01/17-rdfa-minutes.html 16:03:50 benadida has joined #rdfa 16:04:03 +Ben 16:04:07 +??P49 16:04:19 zakim, ??P49 is ShaneM 16:04:19 +ShaneM; got it 16:05:31 zakim, code? 16:05:31 the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck 16:05:47 Steven: note that the just-published HTML 5 WD proposes a registry for @rel values 16:06:06 +??P2 16:06:10 http://riese.joanneum.at/data/economy/ -> issues with displaying in Firefox, Michael... 16:06:11 ... I think we need to keep an eye on this and seed the idea of using URIs as @rel values, perhaps shortened in some way :) 16:06:12 zakim, i am ? 16:06:12 +markbirbeck; got it 16:06:36 zakim, pick a victim 16:06:36 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Manu 16:08:05 s|riese.joanneum.at|| 16:09:09 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080122/#other0 HTML 5 WD proposed mechanism for registering @rel values 16:09:33 Ralph, do you want me to attempt scribing? 16:09:58 what's your preference, Manu? how much of the agenda today will you need to speak to? 16:10:03 http://www.w3.org/2001/01/cgi-irc 16:10:31 XML parsing failed 16:10:31 16:10:31 XML parsing failed: syntax error (Line: 3, Character: 0) 16:10:31 16:10:32 Reparse document as HTML 16:10:33 not much, I don't think... if you can give me some hints as we go along... that would be great. 16:10:34 Error:missing root element 16:10:36 Specification:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/ 16:10:38 1: 16:10:40 2: 16:10:41 scribenick: msporny 16:10:45 Scribe: Manu 16:11:21 Topic: Agenda 16:11:32 markbirbeckweb has joined #rdfa 16:11:45 ben: chaining, we should be voting on the whole model 16:12:01 ben: do people feel like we should be voting on the individual items? 16:12:26 michael: do I have to vote? vote yes or no? abstain? 16:12:36 markbirbeck has left #rdfa 16:12:51 ... I feel like I don't have a strong enough opinion on some issues. 16:13:00 ben: fair enough, let's see when we get to voting. 16:13:11 ralph: voting is meant to be only when we're at an impasse. 16:13:21 ben: last item on list is @src attribute. 16:13:22 markbirbeck has joined #rdfa 16:13:38 ben: anything else? 16:13:55 mark: there are some items that should be voted on separately. 16:14:37 thank Ralph... I'm practicing by being verbose :) 16:14:58 mark: gives examples of some issues. 16:15:07 ben: any particular order you want? 16:15:50 ACTION: 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] 16:15:59 -- CONTINUES 16:16:07 ACTION: Ben to add status of various implementations on rdfa.info [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action06] 16:16:11 -- CONTINUES 16:17:07 ACTION: Ben to respond to comment on follow-your-nose [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action02] 16:17:26 -- CONTINUES 16:17:30 ACTION: Ben to set up a proper scribe schedule [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action01] 16:17:32 -- CONTINUES 16:17:40 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] 16:17:51 -- CONTINUES 16:18:00 ACTION: 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] 16:18:03 -- CONTINUES 16:18:12 ben: nice to know Dublin Core is paying attention to RDFa. 16:18:21 ben: also nice that people are looking into trackback. 16:18:30 ... as a use for RDFa. 16:18:51 topic: non-prefixed @rel/@rev and reserved words. 16:19:11 do I need to use "Topic:" instead of "topic:"? 16:19:20 ben: we need to understand the end-effect. 16:19:26 ... I think we are in agreement at this point. 16:19:45 ... @rel/@rev, when it is a reserved XHTML word, it should generate a proper triple. 16:20:10 ... non-prefixed XHTML words should be ignored. 16:20:37 PROPOSAL: @rel/@rev non-prefixed values other than reserved keywords are ignored. Reserved keywords resolve to vocab#[keyword]. 16:21:00 steven: with the release of HTML5, they have new @rel values 16:21:11 michael: can we decouple that? 16:21:32 ben: they do have their own DOCTYPE, so will probably have to tweak a few things. 16:22:18 how do I note that a proposal passes? 16:22:45 +1 16:23:25 RESOLVED: @rel/@rev non-prefixed values other than reserved keywords are ignored. Reserved keywords resolve to vocab#[keyword]. 16:23:41 ACTION: Ben to update tracker with todays resolutions. 16:24:02 scribenick: ralph 16:24:11 Topic: test cases 16:24:13 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0252.html 16:24:21 -- test 76 16:24:40 Manu: test 76 checks every one of the @rel reserved values that we currently know 16:25:22 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0252.html 16:25:30 RESOLVED: test 76 approved 16:26:11 Manu: the Syntax doc mentioned 'start' but no 'end' or 'last' 16:26:23 ... is that ok? 16:26:43 Mark: I think it would be handy; does it hurt? 16:27:17 ... also consider putting the GRDDL value in 16:27:27 Ben: but the GRDDL relation is in a different namespace 16:27:44 Mark: oh, right. 16:27:56 ... should we test for unrecognized values not generating triples? 16:28:19 Manu: we don't test for spurious triples; we've said those don't go into the default graph 16:28:23 I agree with including 'last' 16:28:49 Michael: we do have a way to say that the 'pass' result is that the query returns no result 16:29:50 Ben: I thought we'd decided to ignore extra triples 16:30:09 Mark: during that discussion, Ben made a strong case for "these triples and only these triples" 16:30:19 ... so we came up with the "default graph" notion 16:30:40 ... the draft was reworded from "no triples shall be generated" to "no triples shall be added to the default graph" 16:30:53 I oppose nofollow 16:31:22 Ben: propose adding another test for non-reserved values; this would be a negative test 16:31:29 ... 'nofollow' would be in the negative set 16:31:43 Manu: should we add 'last'? 16:31:51 q+ 16:32:05 I agree with Ben there 16:32:13 Ben: I think this is for the XHTML2 WG to decide, not this TF 16:32:49 [Ralph] I agree, out of scope for us 16:32:58 Shane: any objections here from the XHTML2 WG folk? 16:33:16 ... we'll recommend to the XHTML2 WG to add 'last' 16:33:29 -- test 77 16:33:34 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0253.html 16:33:41 Mark: Pointing out that once these are added, they are usable everywhere, not just in . So they would help in lists of any items, for example. 16:33:43 Manu: test 77 tests the reserved words in @rev 16:34:31 RESOLVED: test 77 accepted 16:35:14 scribenick: msporny 16:35:16 Manu: not sure we reviewed test 17 16:35:27 Topic: Chaining 16:35:30 Topic: Chaining 16:35:44 err, should I take over, Ralph? 16:35:59 --> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0257.html 16:36:15 Ben: There is an e-mail from mark summarizing the issues: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0257.html 16:36:27 ... rel and rev issues, which we just addressed. 16:36:38 ... @src/@href/@resource to complete triples. 16:36:59 ... should we go in order that they're stated in the e-mail? 16:37:14 mark: if everybody agrees to the generic chaining thing, there is nothing to discuss... 16:37:37 ... if everybody doesn't agree, we have a list of individual items we can talk about. 16:37:52 ... you could break it down further 16:38:05 Ralph, am I the current scribe? (don't know how to check) 16:38:30 ben: lets proceed optimistically, see what the opinions are on the first issue. 16:38:37 ben: if not, we'll slice it down. 16:38:58 mark: closing statements - we have a general algorithm on the table 16:39:26 mark: @instanceof always applies to a subject. 16:39:38 ... we have things to set the subject, @about/@href/@src. 16:40:01 ... based on a @rel, subjects either slide left or right of the @rel. 16:40:32 ... if we have general rules, we might have some wierd stuff going on. 16:40:38 ben: I think Mark's proposal is very consistent. 16:40:50 ... my least preferred option is to mix my model and Mark's model. 16:41:00 ... there is a different model to interpret chaining, 16:41:07 ... @href doesn't complete a hanging rel. 16:41:23 ... the only time you have it chaining is with @about. 16:41:39 ... my worry is that with attributes shifting left/right, and @href becoming the subject of @property 16:41:45 ... it will become more confusing. 16:42:10 ben: any questions? 16:42:32 ralph: wondering if there is a summary in a single place showing side-effects of decisions. 16:42:47 ben: not really, not as complete... 16:42:56 ... Mark's e-mail is a fair summary of what is going on. 16:43:11 ben: do folks feel confident in the understanding of what is going on? 16:43:14 ralph: nope 16:43:17 michael: yep 16:43:19 Manu: yep 16:43:36 ben: let's start with @href/@resource completing hanging @rel. 16:43:40

16:43:40 Mark and Ben. 16:43:40 Note how I'm using FOAF here. 16:43:40

16:43:59 ShaneM has left #rdfa 16:44:12 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 16:45:27 manu: I'm for @href/@resource completing hanging @rel. 16:45:33 michael: yes, for it. 16:45:42 steven: I can live with either, abstain. 16:45:50 shane: I'm abstaining. 16:45:58 ralph: No problem with either, abstain. 16:46:35 ben: i would object, but I would be the only one. 16:46:47 ben: no reason for me to object at this point. 16:46:52 ... as chair, I'm very happy. 16:47:14 PROPOSAL: @href/@resource complete hanging @rel's 16:47:20 RESOLVED: @href/@resource complete hanging @rel's. 16:47:36 ben: rel="", should that shut it off? 16:47:52 mark: it works... would we promote it? 16:48:08 ralph: do the implementations naturally do that? 16:48:29 ben: we should tell people to push hanging rel as deep down as possible. 16:48:42 ben: an extra rel should instantiate a bnode? 16:49:34 mark: what that relies on is that a bnode that doesn't generate a triple, a triple shouldn't be generated for one that's the object. 16:50:11 ralph: rel="" is ugly markup... 16:50:25 ben: let's push the issue off until we need it. 16:50:45 ralph: let's not include it. 16:50:55 mark: this was never meant to be part of the issue. 16:51:30 ben: there are different ways to solve the issue. 16:51:50 ben: anybody that really wants rel=""? 16:51:59 ben: seeing none, let's move on then. 16:52:13 Topic: @href/@resource become subjects? 16:52:44 ralph: what about @src? 16:52:55 ben: any rules that we make about @href/@resource would apply to @src. 16:53:48 ben: if @src is equivalent to @href/@resource, it will complete triples. Same for @about equivalency. 16:54:02 ben: two proposals: @src behaves like @about, or @src behaves like @resource. 16:54:35

16:54:37 ... the only part where it makes a difference is where you want to relate information for an IMG element. 16:54:48 [I understand "behaves like" to be "chains like"] 16:55:00 mark: is it worth voting now should include @src? 16:55:16 ben: two proposals: @src chains like @about, or @src chains like @resource (CORRECTION) 16:56:05 ben: do we want to be able to be able to plop in a predicate with @src? 16:56:24 +1 for @src behaving like @about 16:56:36 ack, +1 for @src chaining like @about. 16:57:16 mark: to clarify - if you put a div above the img you get several types of goodness. 16:57:17

16:57:33

16:57:34

16:57:44 ... like being able to note a license, or have @instanceof apply to the @src 16:57:45 +1 16:57:45 +1 16:57:57 +1 16:58:04 manu: I agree, @src should chain like @about. +1 16:58:07 mark: +1 16:58:10 shane: +1 16:58:15 michael: +1 16:58:36 steven: I have a small problem with it... 16:59:04 steven: no problem with this, but we discussed using @src a long time ago - found a problem, but I can't remember what the problem is. 16:59:07 steven: abstain 16:59:35 we're asking whether the triple ? 17:00:24

17:00:32 ralph: don't quite see the issue... based on how the question is worded. 17:00:56

17:00:59 ralph: I thought we had already decided this once before. 17:01:15 ben: we did, but when Mark explained the chaining model, we could move @src to left. 17:01:27 ralph: so this is a significant change from the previous model? 17:01:42 ralph: both ben and mark seem to be happy with it. 17:01:47 ben: any other comments? 17:01:58 PROPOSAL: @src behaves like @about and is overridden by @about 17:02:06 +1 17:02:19 +1 17:02:22 s/

/ 17:02:35 manu: +1 17:02:37 steven: abstains 17:02:48 RESOLVED: @src behaves like @about and is overridden by @about 17:03:03 Here is my previous mail: 17:03:05 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jan/0018.html 17:03:56 ben: lets go on for another 5-10 minutes, since we're getting close to time running out. 17:04:07 s/rel="license: src="ben.jpg"/rev="license" src="ben.jpg"/ 17:04:19 Topic: @href/@resource as subject 17:04:29 17:04:30 Ivan 17:04:30 17:04:35 ben: when @href/@resource is on an element, should @property apply to that @href? 17:04:58

17:05:08 Mark 17:05:09

17:05:40 ben: since we have agreed that @href chains like @about, then we have to agree that @href can set subject. 17:05:43 +1 17:05:45 ben: mark any additions? 17:05:47 mark: +1 17:05:49 +1 17:05:59 manu: +1 17:06:06 s/peopel/people/ 17:06:08 ralph: I feel less comfortable about this.... 17:06:19 17:06:20 I met with 17:06:20 Ivan 17:06:20 17:06:20 17:06:20 Ivan 17:06:20 17:06:20 Ivan the other day. 17:06:23 mark: there is an e-mail to the list with an example... 17:07:03 mark: we're saying that @href completes hanging triples, it sets the subject for any contained element. 17:07:33 ... maybe we should change what we're talking about. 17:07:59 ... what we're voting on... if we vote on if @href should set property, everything else falls into place. 17:08:17 ralph: if mark and ben are happy, then I may be happy. 17:09:27 mark: the general thing about all of this is that what happens when you add/remove @href/@about... is it consistent. 17:09:37 ralph: if it is consistent, then that's good. 17:09:42 ben: any other comments? 17:09:48 manu: +1 17:09:51 +1 17:09:56 michael: +1 17:10:05 shane: abstain 17:10:24 steven: don't like it, but don't want to block us... abstain. 17:10:25 ben: +1 17:10:28 mark: +1 17:10:46 ben: my +1 is based on the previous decision, I value the consistency above all else. 17:10:51 ralph: abstain 17:10:57 ralph: abstain 17:11:07 PROPOSAL: @href without @rel/@rev/@about sets the subject for @property on the same element. 17:11:24 mark: @href and @resource. 17:11:24 PROPOSAL: @href/@resource without @rel/@rev/@about sets the subject for @property on the same element. 17:11:38 RESOLVED: @href/@resource without @rel/@rev/@about sets the subject for @property on the same element. 17:11:53 ben: last issue for the day? 17:12:03 17:12:03 Ivan 17:12:03 17:12:33 Topic: If subject of @property should be @href, shouldn't @instanceof follow? 17:12:48 manu: doesn't like it, but isn't going to say anything. 17:12:53 :) 17:14:37 ben: it would be wierd if @property applied to @href, but @instanceof didn't. 17:14:44 steven: I need to think about this more. 17:14:56 manu: I think @instanceof should apply to @about and @src only. 17:14:57 Ralph: I think @instanceof should work like @property, so whichever choice makes that work is what I want :) 17:15:22 manu: abstain 17:15:27 +1 17:15:33 michael: +1 17:15:47 steven: abstain 17:15:57 steven: as long as I can send in last call comments. 17:16:12 ralph: I don't want to revisit @class :) 17:16:18 mark: We need to finish this. 17:16:32 *scuffle* 17:17:24 ralph: If we talk about this more, it should be new data. 17:17:34 ben: in the interest in getting to last call, I'd like to take a vote. 17:17:43 ... I'm fine with you bringing up new information at last call. 17:18:11 mark: let's put the vote off... 17:18:33 steven: I don't like @instanceof... 17:18:39 ralph: we can't drop @instanceof 17:18:54 ralph: at this point... 17:19:10 ben: we've resolved alot of good things at this point. 17:19:56 steven: we need to get to last call, willing to abstain on this issue. 17:20:09 ben: Chair notes that steven may bring up new information at last call. 17:20:22 shane: abstain 17:20:42 ben: 3 abstained from the vote. 17:21:00 PROPOSAL: @href/@resource without @rel/@rev/@about sets the subject for @instanceof on same element. 17:21:05 RESOLVED: @href/@resource without @rel/@rev/@about sets the subject for @instanceof on same element. 17:21:36 ben: can you spend some time on the spec to bring it up to snuff? 17:21:37 mark: yes 17:21:46 ben: I'm very excited that we're getting close to last call. 17:21:56 ben: I will work on my implementation... any closing comments? 17:23:22 ben: end of call, let's look at Mark's latest draft when it comes out. Steven/Shane we need to have XHTML working group review before last call. 17:23:41 ben: draft by tomorrow, mark? 17:23:43 mark: yep 17:23:48 -mhausenblas 17:23:49 -Steven 17:23:50 -markbirbeck 17:23:52 help Ralph!? 17:23:53 :) 17:24:08 zakim, list attendees 17:24:08 As of this point the attendees have been Steven, Ralph, mhausenblas, Manu, Ben, ShaneM, markbirbeck 17:24:14 -ShaneM 17:24:20 rrsagent, please draft minutes 17:24:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph 17:26:47 -Manu 17:26:48 -Ralph 17:26:55 -Ben 17:27:01 SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended 17:27:02 Attendees were Steven, Ralph, mhausenblas, Manu, Ben, ShaneM, markbirbeck 17:35:57 ShaneM has left #rdfa 18:43:46 zakim, bye 18:43:46 Zakim has left #rdfa 18:43:47 rrsagent, bye 18:43:47 I see 7 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-actions.rdf : 18:43:47 ACTION: 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] [1] 18:43:47 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-irc#T16-15-50 18:43:47 ACTION: Ben to add status of various implementations on rdfa.info [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action06] [2] 18:43:47 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-irc#T16-16-07 18:43:47 ACTION: Ben to respond to comment on follow-your-nose [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action02] [3] 18:43:47 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-irc#T16-17-07 18:43:47 ACTION: Ben to set up a proper scribe schedule [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action01] [4] 18:43:47 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-irc#T16-17-30 18:43:47 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] [5] 18:43:47 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-irc#T16-17-40 18:43:47 ACTION: 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] [6] 18:43:47 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-irc#T16-18-00 18:43:47 ACTION: Ben to update tracker with todays resolutions. [7] 18:43:47 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-irc#T16-23-41