IRC log of rdfa on 2008-01-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:59:24 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
15:59:24 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-irc
15:59:32 [Steven]
rrsagent, make log public
15:59:35 [markbirbeck]
markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
15:59:37 [Steven]
zakim, this will be rdfa
15:59:37 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
16:00:03 [Steven]
Meeting: Weekly RDFa Teleconference
16:00:07 [Steven]
Chair: Ben
16:00:16 [Steven]
zakim, dial steven-617
16:00:16 [Steven]
zakim, dial steven-617
16:00:16 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
16:00:17 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
16:00:18 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started
16:00:19 [Zakim]
+Steven
16:00:39 [Ralph]
Ralph has joined #rdfa
16:00:47 [Zakim]
+Ralph
16:00:53 [msporny]
morning, Ralph :)
16:01:37 [Steven]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0259
16:01:46 [Steven]
Steven has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0259
16:02:22 [Ralph]
-> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/17-rdfa-minutes.html previous 2008-01-17
16:02:24 [msporny]
hmm... why can't I call in? RDFA# - passcode is not valid?
16:02:32 [Zakim]
+??P42
16:02:44 [Ralph]
skype issue, Manu?
16:02:47 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, P42 is me
16:02:47 [Zakim]
sorry, mhausenblas, I do not recognize a party named 'P42'
16:02:54 [msporny]
perhaps....?
16:02:54 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, ??P42 is me
16:02:54 [Zakim]
+mhausenblas; got it
16:02:55 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
16:03:07 [Ralph]
zakim, ipcaller is Manu
16:03:07 [Zakim]
+Manu; got it
16:03:08 [Steven]
-> Previous http://www.w3.org/2008/01/17-rdfa-minutes.html
16:03:50 [benadida]
benadida has joined #rdfa
16:04:03 [Zakim]
+Ben
16:04:07 [Zakim]
+??P49
16:04:19 [ShaneM]
zakim, ??P49 is ShaneM
16:04:19 [Zakim]
+ShaneM; got it
16:05:31 [markbirbeck]
zakim, code?
16:05:31 [Zakim]
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 [Ralph]
Steven: note that the just-published HTML 5 WD proposes a registry for @rel values
16:06:06 [Zakim]
+??P2
16:06:10 [msporny]
http://riese.joanneum.at/data/economy/ -> issues with displaying in Firefox, Michael...
16:06:11 [Ralph]
... 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 [markbirbeck]
zakim, i am ?
16:06:12 [Zakim]
+markbirbeck; got it
16:06:36 [benadida]
zakim, pick a victim
16:06:36 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Manu
16:08:05 [Ralph]
s|riese.joanneum.at||
16:09:09 [Ralph]
-> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080122/#other0 HTML 5 WD proposed mechanism for registering @rel values
16:09:33 [msporny]
Ralph, do you want me to attempt scribing?
16:09:58 [Ralph]
what's your preference, Manu? how much of the agenda today will you need to speak to?
16:10:03 [mhausenblas]
http://www.w3.org/2001/01/cgi-irc
16:10:31 [Steven]
XML parsing failed
16:10:31 [Steven]
16:10:31 [Steven]
XML parsing failed: syntax error (Line: 3, Character: 0)
16:10:31 [Steven]
16:10:32 [Steven]
Reparse document as HTML
16:10:33 [msporny]
not much, I don't think... if you can give me some hints as we go along... that would be great.
16:10:34 [Steven]
Error:missing root element
16:10:36 [Steven]
Specification:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/
16:10:38 [Steven]
1: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
16:10:40 [Steven]
2: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML+RDFa 1.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-rdfa-1.dtd">
16:10:41 [Ralph]
scribenick: msporny
16:10:45 [Ralph]
Scribe: Manu
16:11:21 [msporny]
Topic: Agenda
16:11:32 [markbirbeckweb]
markbirbeckweb has joined #rdfa
16:11:45 [msporny]
ben: chaining, we should be voting on the whole model
16:12:01 [msporny]
ben: do people feel like we should be voting on the individual items?
16:12:26 [msporny]
michael: do I have to vote? vote yes or no? abstain?
16:12:36 [markbirbeck]
markbirbeck has left #rdfa
16:12:51 [msporny]
... I feel like I don't have a strong enough opinion on some issues.
16:13:00 [msporny]
ben: fair enough, let's see when we get to voting.
16:13:11 [msporny]
ralph: voting is meant to be only when we're at an impasse.
16:13:21 [msporny]
ben: last item on list is @src attribute.
16:13:22 [markbirbeck]
markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
16:13:38 [msporny]
ben: anything else?
16:13:55 [msporny]
mark: there are some items that should be voted on separately.
16:14:37 [msporny]
thank Ralph... I'm practicing by being verbose :)
16:14:58 [msporny]
mark: gives examples of some issues.
16:15:07 [msporny]
ben: any particular order you want?
16:15:50 [msporny]
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 [msporny]
-- CONTINUES
16:16:07 [msporny]
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 [msporny]
-- CONTINUES
16:17:07 [msporny]
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 [msporny]
-- CONTINUES
16:17:30 [msporny]
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 [msporny]
-- CONTINUES
16:17:40 [msporny]
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 [msporny]
-- CONTINUES
16:18:00 [msporny]
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 [msporny]
-- CONTINUES
16:18:12 [msporny]
ben: nice to know Dublin Core is paying attention to RDFa.
16:18:21 [msporny]
ben: also nice that people are looking into trackback.
16:18:30 [msporny]
... as a use for RDFa.
16:18:51 [msporny]
topic: non-prefixed @rel/@rev and reserved words.
16:19:11 [msporny]
do I need to use "Topic:" instead of "topic:"?
16:19:20 [msporny]
ben: we need to understand the end-effect.
16:19:26 [msporny]
... I think we are in agreement at this point.
16:19:45 [msporny]
... @rel/@rev, when it is a reserved XHTML word, it should generate a proper triple.
16:20:10 [msporny]
... non-prefixed XHTML words should be ignored.
16:20:37 [benadida]
PROPOSAL: @rel/@rev non-prefixed values other than reserved keywords are ignored. Reserved keywords resolve to vocab#[keyword].
16:21:00 [msporny]
steven: with the release of HTML5, they have new @rel values
16:21:11 [msporny]
michael: can we decouple that?
16:21:32 [msporny]
ben: they do have their own DOCTYPE, so will probably have to tweak a few things.
16:22:18 [msporny]
how do I note that a proposal passes?
16:22:45 [mhausenblas]
+1
16:23:25 [msporny]
RESOLVED: @rel/@rev non-prefixed values other than reserved keywords are ignored. Reserved keywords resolve to vocab#[keyword].
16:23:41 [msporny]
ACTION: Ben to update tracker with todays resolutions.
16:24:02 [Ralph]
scribenick: ralph
16:24:11 [Ralph]
Topic: test cases
16:24:13 [msporny]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0252.html
16:24:21 [Ralph]
-- test 76
16:24:40 [Ralph]
Manu: test 76 checks every one of the @rel reserved values that we currently know
16:25:22 [msporny]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0252.html
16:25:30 [Ralph]
RESOLVED: test 76 approved
16:26:11 [Ralph]
Manu: the Syntax doc mentioned 'start' but no 'end' or 'last'
16:26:23 [Ralph]
... is that ok?
16:26:43 [Ralph]
Mark: I think it would be handy; does it hurt?
16:27:17 [Ralph]
... also consider putting the GRDDL value in
16:27:27 [Ralph]
Ben: but the GRDDL relation is in a different namespace
16:27:44 [Ralph]
Mark: oh, right.
16:27:56 [Ralph]
... should we test for unrecognized values not generating triples?
16:28:19 [Ralph]
Manu: we don't test for spurious triples; we've said those don't go into the default graph
16:28:23 [Steven]
I agree with including 'last'
16:28:49 [Ralph]
Michael: we do have a way to say that the 'pass' result is that the query returns no result
16:29:50 [Ralph]
Ben: I thought we'd decided to ignore extra triples
16:30:09 [Ralph]
Mark: during that discussion, Ben made a strong case for "these triples and only these triples"
16:30:19 [Ralph]
... so we came up with the "default graph" notion
16:30:40 [Ralph]
... the draft was reworded from "no triples shall be generated" to "no triples shall be added to the default graph"
16:30:53 [Steven]
I oppose nofollow
16:31:22 [Ralph]
Ben: propose adding another test for non-reserved values; this would be a negative test
16:31:29 [Ralph]
... 'nofollow' would be in the negative set
16:31:43 [Ralph]
Manu: should we add 'last'?
16:31:51 [Ralph]
q+
16:32:05 [Steven]
I agree with Ben there
16:32:13 [Ralph]
Ben: I think this is for the XHTML2 WG to decide, not this TF
16:32:49 [Ralph]
[Ralph] I agree, out of scope for us
16:32:58 [Ralph]
Shane: any objections here from the XHTML2 WG folk?
16:33:16 [Ralph]
... we'll recommend to the XHTML2 WG to add 'last'
16:33:29 [Ralph]
-- test 77
16:33:34 [msporny]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0253.html
16:33:41 [markbirbeck]
Mark: Pointing out that once these are added, they are usable everywhere, not just in <head>. So they would help in lists of any items, for example.
16:33:43 [Ralph]
Manu: test 77 tests the reserved words in @rev
16:34:31 [Ralph]
RESOLVED: test 77 accepted
16:35:14 [msporny]
scribenick: msporny
16:35:16 [Ralph]
Manu: not sure we reviewed test 17
16:35:27 [Ralph]
Topic: Chaining
16:35:30 [msporny]
Topic: Chaining
16:35:44 [msporny]
err, should I take over, Ralph?
16:35:59 [benadida]
--> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0257.html
16:36:15 [msporny]
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 [msporny]
... rel and rev issues, which we just addressed.
16:36:38 [msporny]
... @src/@href/@resource to complete triples.
16:36:59 [msporny]
... should we go in order that they're stated in the e-mail?
16:37:14 [msporny]
mark: if everybody agrees to the generic chaining thing, there is nothing to discuss...
16:37:37 [msporny]
... if everybody doesn't agree, we have a list of individual items we can talk about.
16:37:52 [msporny]
... you could break it down further
16:38:05 [msporny]
Ralph, am I the current scribe? (don't know how to check)
16:38:30 [msporny]
ben: lets proceed optimistically, see what the opinions are on the first issue.
16:38:37 [msporny]
ben: if not, we'll slice it down.
16:38:58 [msporny]
mark: closing statements - we have a general algorithm on the table
16:39:26 [msporny]
mark: @instanceof always applies to a subject.
16:39:38 [msporny]
... we have things to set the subject, @about/@href/@src.
16:40:01 [msporny]
... based on a @rel, subjects either slide left or right of the @rel.
16:40:32 [msporny]
... if we have general rules, we might have some wierd stuff going on.
16:40:38 [msporny]
ben: I think Mark's proposal is very consistent.
16:40:50 [msporny]
... my least preferred option is to mix my model and Mark's model.
16:41:00 [msporny]
... there is a different model to interpret chaining,
16:41:07 [msporny]
... @href doesn't complete a hanging rel.
16:41:23 [msporny]
... the only time you have it chaining is with @about.
16:41:39 [msporny]
... my worry is that with attributes shifting left/right, and @href becoming the subject of @property
16:41:45 [msporny]
... it will become more confusing.
16:42:10 [msporny]
ben: any questions?
16:42:32 [msporny]
ralph: wondering if there is a summary in a single place showing side-effects of decisions.
16:42:47 [msporny]
ben: not really, not as complete...
16:42:56 [msporny]
... Mark's e-mail is a fair summary of what is going on.
16:43:11 [msporny]
ben: do folks feel confident in the understanding of what is going on?
16:43:14 [msporny]
ralph: nope
16:43:17 [msporny]
michael: yep
16:43:19 [msporny]
Manu: yep
16:43:36 [msporny]
ben: let's start with @href/@resource completing hanging @rel.
16:43:40 [benadida]
<div about="http://www.w3.org/peopel/ivan#me" rel="foaf:knows">
16:43:40 [benadida]
<a href="#mark">Mark</a> and <a href="#ben">Ben</a>.
16:43:40 [benadida]
Note how I'm using <a href="http://foaf.org">FOAF</a> here.
16:43:40 [benadida]
</div>
16:43:59 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has left #rdfa
16:44:12 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has joined #rdfa
16:45:27 [msporny]
manu: I'm for @href/@resource completing hanging @rel.
16:45:33 [msporny]
michael: yes, for it.
16:45:42 [msporny]
steven: I can live with either, abstain.
16:45:50 [msporny]
shane: I'm abstaining.
16:45:58 [msporny]
ralph: No problem with either, abstain.
16:46:35 [msporny]
ben: i would object, but I would be the only one.
16:46:47 [msporny]
ben: no reason for me to object at this point.
16:46:52 [msporny]
... as chair, I'm very happy.
16:47:14 [benadida]
PROPOSAL: @href/@resource complete hanging @rel's
16:47:20 [msporny]
RESOLVED: @href/@resource complete hanging @rel's.
16:47:36 [msporny]
ben: rel="", should that shut it off?
16:47:52 [msporny]
mark: it works... would we promote it?
16:48:08 [msporny]
ralph: do the implementations naturally do that?
16:48:29 [msporny]
ben: we should tell people to push hanging rel as deep down as possible.
16:48:42 [msporny]
ben: an extra rel should instantiate a bnode?
16:49:34 [msporny]
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 [msporny]
ralph: rel="" is ugly markup...
16:50:25 [msporny]
ben: let's push the issue off until we need it.
16:50:45 [msporny]
ralph: let's not include it.
16:50:55 [msporny]
mark: this was never meant to be part of the issue.
16:51:30 [msporny]
ben: there are different ways to solve the issue.
16:51:50 [msporny]
ben: anybody that really wants rel=""?
16:51:59 [msporny]
ben: seeing none, let's move on then.
16:52:13 [msporny]
Topic: @href/@resource become subjects?
16:52:44 [msporny]
ralph: what about @src?
16:52:55 [msporny]
ben: any rules that we make about @href/@resource would apply to @src.
16:53:48 [msporny]
ben: if @src is equivalent to @href/@resource, it will complete triples. Same for @about equivalency.
16:54:02 [msporny]
ben: two proposals: @src behaves like @about, or @src behaves like @resource.
16:54:35 [benadida]
<img src="thumbnail.jpg" rel="smallerVersionOf" href="big.jpg" />
16:54:37 [msporny]
... the only part where it makes a difference is where you want to relate information for an IMG element.
16:54:48 [Ralph]
[I understand "behaves like" to be "chains like"]
16:55:00 [msporny]
mark: is it worth voting now should include @src?
16:55:16 [msporny]
ben: two proposals: @src chains like @about, or @src chains like @resource (CORRECTION)
16:56:05 [msporny]
ben: do we want to be able to be able to plop in a predicate with @src?
16:56:24 [msporny]
+1 for @src behaving like @about
16:56:36 [msporny]
ack, +1 for @src chaining like @about.
16:57:16 [msporny]
mark: to clarify - if you put a div above the img you get several types of goodness.
16:57:17 [benadida]
<div about="#me" rel="foaf:img">
16:57:33 [benadida]
<img src="ben.jpg" rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/3.0/" />
16:57:34 [benadida]
</div>
16:57:44 [msporny]
... like being able to note a license, or have @instanceof apply to the @src
16:57:45 [markbirbeck]
+1
16:57:45 [msporny]
+1
16:57:57 [ShaneM]
+1
16:58:04 [msporny]
manu: I agree, @src should chain like @about. +1
16:58:07 [msporny]
mark: +1
16:58:10 [msporny]
shane: +1
16:58:15 [msporny]
michael: +1
16:58:36 [msporny]
steven: I have a small problem with it...
16:59:04 [msporny]
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 [msporny]
steven: abstain
16:59:35 [Ralph]
we're asking whether the triple <ben.jpb> <xhtml:license> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/3.0/> ?
17:00:24 [benadida]
<img about="#me" rel="foaf:img" src="ben.jpg" />
17:00:32 [msporny]
ralph: don't quite see the issue... based on how the question is worded.
17:00:56 [markbirbeck]
<img about="#me" rel="license" src="ben.jpg" />
17:00:59 [msporny]
ralph: I thought we had already decided this once before.
17:01:15 [msporny]
ben: we did, but when Mark explained the chaining model, we could move @src to left.
17:01:27 [msporny]
ralph: so this is a significant change from the previous model?
17:01:42 [msporny]
ralph: both ben and mark seem to be happy with it.
17:01:47 [msporny]
ben: any other comments?
17:01:58 [benadida]
PROPOSAL: @src behaves like @about and is overridden by @about
17:02:06 [msporny]
+1
17:02:19 [mhausenblas]
+1
17:02:22 [markbirbeck]
s/<img about="#me" rel="license" src="ben.jpg" \/>/<img about="http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/3.0\/" rel="license" src="ben.jpg" \/>/
17:02:35 [msporny]
manu: +1
17:02:37 [msporny]
steven: abstains
17:02:48 [msporny]
RESOLVED: @src behaves like @about and is overridden by @about
17:03:03 [Steven]
Here is my previous mail:
17:03:05 [Steven]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jan/0018.html
17:03:56 [msporny]
ben: lets go on for another 5-10 minutes, since we're getting close to time running out.
17:04:07 [markbirbeck]
s/rel="license: src="ben.jpg"/rev="license" src="ben.jpg"/
17:04:19 [msporny]
Topic: @href/@resource as subject
17:04:29 [benadida]
<a href="http://www.w3.org/peopel/ivan#me" property="foaf:name">
17:04:30 [benadida]
Ivan
17:04:30 [benadida]
</a>
17:04:35 [msporny]
ben: when @href/@resource is on an element, should @property apply to that @href?
17:04:58 [benadida]
<div about="#me" rel="foaf:knows">
17:05:08 [benadida]
<span href="#mark" property="foaf:name">Mark</span>
17:05:09 [benadida]
</div>
17:05:40 [msporny]
ben: since we have agreed that @href chains like @about, then we have to agree that @href can set subject.
17:05:43 [markbirbeck]
+1
17:05:45 [msporny]
ben: mark any additions?
17:05:47 [msporny]
mark: +1
17:05:49 [msporny]
+1
17:05:59 [msporny]
manu: +1
17:06:06 [Steven]
s/peopel/people/
17:06:08 [msporny]
ralph: I feel less comfortable about this....
17:06:19 [benadida]
<a href="http://www.w3.org/peopel/ivan#me">
17:06:20 [markbirbeck]
I met with
17:06:20 [benadida]
<span property="foaf:name">Ivan</span>
17:06:20 [markbirbeck]
<a href="http://www.w3.org/peopel/ivan#me">
17:06:20 [benadida]
</a>
17:06:20 [markbirbeck]
<span property="foaf:name">Ivan</span>
17:06:20 [markbirbeck]
</a>
17:06:20 [markbirbeck]
Ivan the other day.
17:06:23 [msporny]
mark: there is an e-mail to the list with an example...
17:07:03 [msporny]
mark: we're saying that @href completes hanging triples, it sets the subject for any contained element.
17:07:33 [msporny]
... maybe we should change what we're talking about.
17:07:59 [msporny]
... what we're voting on... if we vote on if @href should set property, everything else falls into place.
17:08:17 [msporny]
ralph: if mark and ben are happy, then I may be happy.
17:09:27 [msporny]
mark: the general thing about all of this is that what happens when you add/remove @href/@about... is it consistent.
17:09:37 [msporny]
ralph: if it is consistent, then that's good.
17:09:42 [msporny]
ben: any other comments?
17:09:48 [msporny]
manu: +1
17:09:51 [mhausenblas]
+1
17:09:56 [msporny]
michael: +1
17:10:05 [msporny]
shane: abstain
17:10:24 [msporny]
steven: don't like it, but don't want to block us... abstain.
17:10:25 [msporny]
ben: +1
17:10:28 [msporny]
mark: +1
17:10:46 [msporny]
ben: my +1 is based on the previous decision, I value the consistency above all else.
17:10:51 [Ralph]
ralph: abstain
17:10:57 [msporny]
ralph: abstain
17:11:07 [benadida]
PROPOSAL: @href without @rel/@rev/@about sets the subject for @property on the same element.
17:11:24 [msporny]
mark: @href and @resource.
17:11:24 [benadida]
PROPOSAL: @href/@resource without @rel/@rev/@about sets the subject for @property on the same element.
17:11:38 [msporny]
RESOLVED: @href/@resource without @rel/@rev/@about sets the subject for @property on the same element.
17:11:53 [msporny]
ben: last issue for the day?
17:12:03 [benadida]
<a href="http://www.w3.org/peopel/ivan#me" instanceof="foaf:Person">
17:12:03 [benadida]
<span property="foaf:name">Ivan</span>
17:12:03 [benadida]
</a>
17:12:33 [msporny]
Topic: If subject of @property should be @href, shouldn't @instanceof follow?
17:12:48 [msporny]
manu: doesn't like it, but isn't going to say anything.
17:12:53 [msporny]
:)
17:14:37 [msporny]
ben: it would be wierd if @property applied to @href, but @instanceof didn't.
17:14:44 [msporny]
steven: I need to think about this more.
17:14:56 [msporny]
manu: I think @instanceof should apply to @about and @src only.
17:14:57 [Ralph]
Ralph: I think @instanceof should work like @property, so whichever choice makes that work is what I want :)
17:15:22 [msporny]
manu: abstain
17:15:27 [mhausenblas]
+1
17:15:33 [msporny]
michael: +1
17:15:47 [msporny]
steven: abstain
17:15:57 [msporny]
steven: as long as I can send in last call comments.
17:16:12 [msporny]
ralph: I don't want to revisit @class :)
17:16:18 [msporny]
mark: We need to finish this.
17:16:32 [msporny]
*scuffle*
17:17:24 [msporny]
ralph: If we talk about this more, it should be new data.
17:17:34 [msporny]
ben: in the interest in getting to last call, I'd like to take a vote.
17:17:43 [msporny]
... I'm fine with you bringing up new information at last call.
17:18:11 [msporny]
mark: let's put the vote off...
17:18:33 [msporny]
steven: I don't like @instanceof...
17:18:39 [msporny]
ralph: we can't drop @instanceof
17:18:54 [msporny]
ralph: at this point...
17:19:10 [msporny]
ben: we've resolved alot of good things at this point.
17:19:56 [msporny]
steven: we need to get to last call, willing to abstain on this issue.
17:20:09 [msporny]
ben: Chair notes that steven may bring up new information at last call.
17:20:22 [msporny]
shane: abstain
17:20:42 [msporny]
ben: 3 abstained from the vote.
17:21:00 [benadida]
PROPOSAL: @href/@resource without @rel/@rev/@about sets the subject for @instanceof on same element.
17:21:05 [msporny]
RESOLVED: @href/@resource without @rel/@rev/@about sets the subject for @instanceof on same element.
17:21:36 [msporny]
ben: can you spend some time on the spec to bring it up to snuff?
17:21:37 [msporny]
mark: yes
17:21:46 [msporny]
ben: I'm very excited that we're getting close to last call.
17:21:56 [msporny]
ben: I will work on my implementation... any closing comments?
17:23:22 [msporny]
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 [msporny]
ben: draft by tomorrow, mark?
17:23:43 [msporny]
mark: yep
17:23:48 [Zakim]
-mhausenblas
17:23:49 [Zakim]
-Steven
17:23:50 [Zakim]
-markbirbeck
17:23:52 [msporny]
help Ralph!?
17:23:53 [msporny]
:)
17:24:08 [Ralph]
zakim, list attendees
17:24:08 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Steven, Ralph, mhausenblas, Manu, Ben, ShaneM, markbirbeck
17:24:14 [Zakim]
-ShaneM
17:24:20 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
17:24:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph
17:26:47 [Zakim]
-Manu
17:26:48 [Zakim]
-Ralph
17:26:55 [Zakim]
-Ben
17:27:01 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended
17:27:02 [Zakim]
Attendees were Steven, Ralph, mhausenblas, Manu, Ben, ShaneM, markbirbeck
17:35:57 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has left #rdfa
18:43:46 [Ralph]
zakim, bye
18:43:46 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfa
18:43:47 [Ralph]
rrsagent, bye
18:43:47 [RRSAgent]
I see 7 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-actions.rdf :
18:43:47 [RRSAgent]
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 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-irc#T16-15-50
18:43:47 [RRSAgent]
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 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-irc#T16-16-07
18:43:47 [RRSAgent]
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 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-irc#T16-17-07
18:43:47 [RRSAgent]
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 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-irc#T16-17-30
18:43:47 [RRSAgent]
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 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-irc#T16-17-40
18:43:47 [RRSAgent]
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 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-irc#T16-18-00
18:43:47 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben to update tracker with todays resolutions. [7]
18:43:47 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/24-rdfa-irc#T16-23-41