15:53:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
15:53:02 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/02/21-rdfa-irc
15:53:08 <Ralph> Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML Task Force
15:53:13 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
15:53:16 <Ralph> zakim, this will be rdfa
15:53:16 <Zakim> ok, Ralph; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
15:53:22 <Ralph> rrsagent, please make record public
15:53:53 <msporny> morning Ralph :)
15:53:57 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-rdfa-minutes.html previous 2008-02-14
15:54:01 <Ralph> hi, Manu :)
15:54:17 <Ralph> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Feb/0096.html
15:55:21 <msporny> no problem, I know everybody's busy and I already had a template from last week :)
15:57:55 <Zakim> SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started
15:58:02 <Zakim> +??P1
15:58:07 <msporny> zakim, I am ??P1
15:58:07 <Zakim> +msporny; got it
16:00:07 <Zakim> +Ralph
16:00:38 <Ralph> Regrets: Michael
16:00:43 <msporny> Shane said he'd be here.
16:00:45 <Ralph> partial regrets from Mark
16:01:19 <Ralph> Ralph: Shane has been working on the /vocab namespace document
16:01:23 <Ralph> ... he's given me a draft
16:02:46 <Zakim> +ShaneM
16:03:19 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
16:04:10 <Ralph> Topic: Action Review
16:04:17 <Ralph> [DONE] ACTION: Shane send response to Diego and Ed review comments when new editors' draft is up [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-rdfa-minutes.html#action06]
16:05:27 <Ralph> ACTION: Ben to add status of various implementations on rdfa.info [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action06]
16:05:29 <Ralph> -- continues]
16:05:32 <Ralph> -- continues
16:05:33 <markbirbeck> markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
16:05:47 <Ralph> ACTION: Ben to add status of various implementations on rdfa.info [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action06]
16:05:50 <Ralph> -- continues
16:05:59 <Ralph> ACTION: Ben to email mailing list to think about last substantive issue on tracker: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/6 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/07-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
16:06:00 <Ralph> -- continues
16:06:13 <Ralph> ACTION: Manu write 2 new tests for img[@src] as subject [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
16:06:14 <Ralph> -- continues
16:06:20 <msporny> hi mark, we need you to look at test cases #78-#88
16:06:23 <Ralph> 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]
16:06:23 <Ralph>  
16:06:25 <markbirbeck> markbirbeck has left #rdfa
16:06:25 <Ralph> -- continues
16:06:26 <msporny> and let us know if you agree with them
16:06:33 <markbirbeck> markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
16:06:47 <msporny> hi mark, we need you to look at test cases #78-#88
16:06:59 <msporny> and let us know if you agree with them
16:07:03 <markbirbeck> Dang.
16:07:31 <markbirbeck> Ok...do you have a URL? (I know I should have a bookmark...)
16:07:49 <Ralph> -> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/ tests
16:07:58 <msporny> just FYI, #78-#83, #87 PASS using Ivan and my latest implementations.
16:08:11 <msporny> so you don't have to worry about syntax issues in those test cases.
16:10:35 <markbirbeck> #78 is fine.
16:10:43 <Ralph> Agenda: Test Cases
16:11:02 <Ralph> -- test 78
16:11:12 <markbirbeck> Minor points that they are easier to read if everything is in the same order in all blocks (HTML, N3, RDF and SPARQL) but that's my only comment.
16:11:15 <Ralph> Multiple incomplete triples
16:12:17 <Ralph> Ralph: Ben was happy with test 78 on 7-Feb; http://www.w3.org/2008/02/07-rdfa-minutes.html#item02
16:12:26 <Ralph> RESOLVED: Test 78 accepted
16:12:42 <Ralph> -- test 79 @resource and @href in completing incomplete triples
16:12:50 <msporny> Ben's replies to test cases: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Feb/0025.html
16:12:54 <markbirbeck> #79 is good, too.
16:12:59 <markbirbeck> Again, minor point...
16:13:17 <markbirbeck> ...don't see what the super-abbreviation gains in the N3 block. :)
16:13:31 <markbirbeck> Makes it slightly harder to read when comparing with the HTML.
16:13:35 <markbirbeck> But minor point again.
16:13:45 <Ralph> Manu: we don't believe the N3 yet
16:13:59 <Ralph> ... focus on the SPARQL
16:14:02 <msporny> N3 is generated by Ivan's parser, plus it's informative, no need to pay attention to it yet.
16:14:45 <Ralph> Manu: N3 in test 79 looks correct, though it's unreadable as is
16:14:53 <Ralph> RESOLVED: Test 79 accepted
16:15:07 <Ralph> -- test 80; @about overrides @resource in incomplete triples
16:15:15 <markbirbeck> #80 looks lovely. :)
16:16:17 <Ralph> RESOLVED: Test 80 accepted
16:16:45 <markbirbeck> #81 is very smart...and seems right to me.
16:17:02 <Ralph> (Ben was happy with 80 on 7-Feb too http://www.w3.org/2008/02/07-rdfa-minutes.html#item02 )
16:18:08 <markbirbeck> #82 also looks ok to me.
16:19:16 <markbirbeck> Minor point is that in the SPARQL in other tests, the square bracket syntax has generally been used, whilst here we're using "_:a" and "_:b".
16:19:21 <markbirbeck> Minor point again, though.
16:19:27 <Ralph> [some discussion of what "substantive change" means]
16:19:35 <markbirbeck> (Compare to #83, for example.)
16:20:25 <msporny> mark, be sure to skip #84, #85, and #88
16:20:40 <markbirbeck> #83 is good.
16:20:45 <markbirbeck> ok
16:21:18 <Ralph> -- test 81; multiple ways of handling incomplete triples (with @rev)
16:21:50 <Ralph> Ralph: Ben was happy with 81 and wanted to check his implementation
16:21:56 <Ralph> RESOLVED: Test 81 accepted
16:22:14 <Ralph> -- test 82; multiple ways of handling incomplete triples (with @rel and @rev) 
16:22:32 <Ralph> Ralph: Ben was fine with 82 after typo fixes
16:22:45 <markbirbeck> On #86, we might want to make the query check for { <http://www.example.org#somebody> ?p <mailto:ivan@w3.org> }
16:23:08 <Ralph> Manu: Ivan has written some SPARQL using the '[...]' syntax where we've been using bnode syntax
16:23:20 <markbirbeck> The rule is that @rel="foobar" should generate nothing, not just that it shouldn't generate anything in the XHTML vocab namespace.
16:23:23 <Ralph> ... we might want to update test 83 to use bnode syntax
16:23:50 <Ralph> RESOLVED: Test 82 accepted
16:24:01 <Ralph> -- test 83; multiple ways of handling incomplete triples (merged)
16:24:05 <markbirbeck> (And obviously in #86 we're testing for 'no matches', as opposed to a match.)
16:24:48 <Ralph> Manu: let's rewrite 82 to use named bnodes
16:24:55 <Ralph> s/82/83/
16:25:45 <Ralph> Manu: skip 84 and 85 for now due to syntax errors
16:26:22 <msporny> correct, mark - #86 is our first FALSE test for the SPARQL.
16:26:28 <Ralph> -- test 86; NO triple for a non-reserved @rel value
16:27:12 <markbirbeck> I'm not quite following #87...is there a similar test without the colon prefix? I.e., is this to test that that we support two means of expressing the same predicates?
16:27:36 <ShaneM> there is a similar test without a colon
16:27:50 <Ralph> Ralph: did we want our tests to allow implementations to produce "additional" triples
16:27:56 <markbirbeck> Either way, minor point would be that in general the items are in alphabetical order, which makes it handy for double-checking...so perhaps the few stray ones could be put into order.
16:27:57 <Ralph> Manu: yes, but not in the default graph
16:28:15 <Ralph> ... we haven't said that we test [only] for triples in the default graph
16:28:31 <Ralph> Ralph: in that case I like Mark's suggestion to use ?p in the SPARQL
16:29:00 <Ralph> ... so there's NO relationshp between #somebody and ivan
16:29:04 <Ralph> Manu: that makes sense to me
16:29:53 <markbirbeck> (Still on #87...) Secondly, we might consider using <base> in the test, so that we're not tied to where these tests are being run from, and to abbreviate the SPARQL.
16:29:58 <msporny> SPARQL for test #86: 
16:30:06 <msporny> ASK WHERE {
16:30:24 <msporny> <http://www.example.org/#somebody> ?p <mailto:ivan@w3.org> .
16:30:26 <msporny> }
16:30:32 <msporny> That test should return FALSE.
16:30:45 <markbirbeck> And third (on #87) we might consider adding an item that is not in the list of vocab values, since this is *allowed* when using the ":foo" syntax.
16:31:28 <Ralph> RESOLVED: test 86 accepted with change to ?p
16:31:40 <msporny> Mark, shouldn't that be a separate test?
16:31:42 <markbirbeck> That's all from me...I'll try to keep an eye out if you need me for anything else.
16:31:47 <msporny> testing ":foo" syntax?
16:31:51 <Ralph> -- test 87; All reserved XHTML @rel values (with :xxx) 
16:31:54 <msporny> thanks :)
16:31:58 <markbirbeck> Good point.
16:32:02 <markbirbeck> Yes, could be.
16:32:11 <msporny> I think we should make that a separate test...
16:32:28 <markbirbeck> Basically, whilst @rel="foo" should *fail*, @rel=":foo" should *succeed*.
16:33:40 <Ralph> Shane: remember, :foo _always_ uses /vocab#; there's no way to change the CURIE prefix
16:35:00 <Ralph> Manu: should we test @rel="next" to insure that the code isn't using the same branch as @rel=":next" ?
16:35:09 <Ralph> ... i.e. to test a misunderstanding of the document
16:36:24 <Ralph> s/"next"/"foo"/
16:36:29 <Ralph> s/":next"/":foo"/
16:36:42 <msporny> ACTION: create unit test to make sure that rel=":foo" generates a triple.
16:37:10 <Ralph> Ralph: do we have a test for @rel="foo" ?
16:37:14 <Ralph> Manu: yes, test 86
16:40:58 <Ralph> Manu: test 87 is missing stylesheet
16:41:12 <Ralph> ... as do tests 76, 77
16:41:32 <msporny> ACTION: Let Michael know that Test 76, 77, and 87 are missing stylesheet.
16:42:39 <Ralph> Ralph: for those cases in test 87 where the reserved word plausibly has a reasonable value, we should use it
16:42:50 <Ralph> ... thought that's a nit
16:43:21 <Ralph> ... so how about just a comment noting that these test values are not semantically reasonable
16:44:00 <Ralph> RESOLVED: test 87 accepted, after realphabetizing
16:44:41 <Ralph> Topioc: Implementation Report
16:45:14 <Ralph> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Feb/0097.html Michael re: implementor's call
16:45:23 <msporny> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Feb/0097.html
16:46:31 <Ralph> Ralph: the "call" that I think Michael is asking about is the "Candidate Recommendation" transition
16:46:41 <Ralph> ... CR is a "call for implementation"
16:51:22 <Ralph> ... we should document how we'd like implementers to report their implementation experience
16:51:30 <Ralph> ... this can go in the SOTD of the CR draft
16:52:12 <Ralph> Topic: Open Issues
16:52:16 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/products/2 RDFa issues tracker
16:53:17 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/7 issue 7
16:54:57 <Ralph> ACTION: Manu write a response to Christian Hoertnagl for issue 7
16:55:22 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/8 issue 8
16:55:57 <Ralph> Ralph: we've chosen to defer RDF Container support
16:58:29 <Ralph> RESOLVED: issue 8 is POSTPONED
16:59:13 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/63 issue 63
16:59:19 <Ralph> Ralph: we resolved this last telecon
17:00:24 <Ralph> [adjourned]
17:00:27 <Zakim> -ShaneM
17:00:30 <Zakim> -Ralph
17:00:31 <Zakim> SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended
17:00:32 <Zakim> Attendees were msporny, Ralph, ShaneM
17:05:17 <Ralph> rrsagent, please draft minutes
17:05:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/21-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph
18:04:14 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfa