14:58:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:58:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-irc
14:58:33 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:58:39 <Ralph> Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML Task Force
14:58:43 <Ralph> zakim, this will be rdfa
14:58:48 <Ralph> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0344.html
14:58:53 <Ralph> rrsagent, please make record public
14:58:57 <Zakim> ok, Ralph; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
15:00:22 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html previous 2008-03-20
15:01:28 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
15:01:28 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:01:29 <Zakim> SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started
15:01:31 <Zakim> +Steven
15:01:32 <Zakim> +Ralph
15:01:39 <Zakim> -Steven
15:01:41 <Zakim> +Steven
15:02:46 <Ralph> Regrets: Michael
15:03:47 <Zakim> +??P36
15:03:53 <msporny> zakim, I am ??P36
15:03:53 <Zakim> +msporny; got it
15:04:08 <benadida> benadida has joined #rdfa
15:04:16 <markbirbeck> markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
15:04:17 <Zakim> +Ben_Adida
15:05:21 <benadida> zakim, pick a victim
15:05:22 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Ben_Adida
15:05:40 <benadida> chair: benadida
15:05:46 <benadida> zakim, pick a victim
15:05:46 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose msporny
15:06:30 <benadida> Regrets: MichaelH
15:06:45 <msporny> scribenick: msporny
15:06:47 <benadida> Scribe: msporny
15:07:54 <msporny> Topic: Action Items
15:08:19 <msporny> np, Ralph :)
15:08:27 <msporny> ACTION: Ben to follow up on media type discussion with Steven, Ralph, and TAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
15:08:33 <msporny> -- CONTINUES
15:08:55 <msporny> ACTION: Manu to add test cases for xmlliterals with namespace preservation, including one where the xmlliteral re-declares one of the namespaces [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
15:08:58 <msporny> -- DONE
15:09:08 <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]
15:09:12 <msporny> -- CONTINUES
15:09:20 <msporny> ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
15:09:33 <msporny> -- CONTINUES
15:09:36 <markbirbeck> zakim, code?
15:09:38 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck
15:09:44 <msporny> ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
15:09:50 <msporny> -- CONTINUES
15:10:00 <msporny> ACTION: Manu write a response to Christian Hoertnagl for issue 7 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/21-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
15:10:07 <Zakim> +markbirbeck
15:10:28 <msporny> -- DONE
15:10:58 <msporny> ACTION: Ben and Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl.
15:11:19 <msporny> ACTION: Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
15:11:31 <msporny> -- CONTINUES
15:11:39 <msporny> ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
15:11:41 <msporny> -- CONTINUES
15:12:05 <msporny> Ben: we have to review test cases and two issues today.
15:12:24 <msporny> Ben: Have people read the discussion between TimBL and RDFa TF
15:12:33 <msporny> Ben: ... concerning DOCTYPE.
15:12:44 <msporny> Steven: Read it, but not in detail.
15:12:57 <msporny> Ben: Here's where I think we stand on this...
15:13:04 <Ralph> q+
15:13:14 <msporny> Ben: ... he's saying if we have a @profile, why don't we just put the equivalent profile in namespace document.
15:13:38 <msporny> Ben: I'm not opposed to it... we won't put @profile in instance documents and in the namespace document.
15:13:46 <msporny> Ben: He says that we shouldn't use DOCTYPE
15:13:56 <msporny> Ben: but the W3C validator won't work if we do that.
15:14:20 <msporny> Ben: The modularization with schemas isn't REC at the point... so we can't depend on that.
15:14:40 <msporny> Steven: We could say that when it becomes REC that we will reference it.
15:14:45 <msporny> Ben: When do we say that?
15:14:57 <msporny> Steven: We could respond to TimBL and put it in the spec.
15:15:24 <msporny> Ben: First issue is the idea of putting @profile in namespace document
15:15:57 <msporny> Ben: Third thing is that RDFa processor shouldn't generate triples outside of default graph.
15:16:11 <msporny> Ben: Second issue is not using DOCTYPE.
15:16:49 <msporny> Steven: DOCTYPE declaration is used by browsers currently to switch into standards mode.
15:17:05 <msporny> Steven: DTDs don't do any harm and people can still validate using them.
15:17:13 <msporny> Steven: They're still useful.
15:17:27 <msporny> Ben: Will browsers switch into standards mode using our DOCTYPE declaration?
15:17:30 <msporny> Steven: Yes.
15:17:44 <msporny> Ben: Then completely doing away with DOCTYPE is not the correct approach.
15:18:05 <msporny> ack Ralph
15:18:09 <markbirbeck> q+
15:18:17 <msporny> Ralph: Do we change a SHOULD to a MAY?
15:18:33 <msporny> Ralph: ... in the syntax document.
15:18:52 <Steven> Without DTDs there are no character entities either
15:18:56 <msporny> Ben: So we shouldn't force people to do it, but we do think this is a valid way of doing this.
15:19:26 <msporny> Ralph: Without DOCTYPE we have validation issues.
15:19:32 <msporny> ack markbirbeck
15:19:42 <msporny> Mark: We should separate out the different issues here.
15:19:53 <msporny> Mark: DOCTYPE as per standards mode isn't relevant to us.
15:20:31 <msporny> Mark: We don't require standards mode and thus it confuses the issue by saying that the reason we have DOCTYPE was because of standards mode.
15:20:49 <msporny> Mark: If detecting RDFa in the document isn't an issue, then all that matters is validation.
15:21:10 <msporny> Mark: If we want the document to be validated, they should use DOCTYPE... but that isn't part of the RDFa processing rules.
15:21:19 <msporny> Ben: I like this direction.
15:21:58 <msporny> Ben: Then we're saying DOCTYPE becomes a MAY, but we don't require it. You can validate with Schema, but we're providing DOCTYPE because there is no way to validate via Schema right now.
15:22:27 <msporny> Steven: Sounds good, fine with MAY. We should hear from Shane... he feels strongly about SHOULD.
15:22:40 <msporny> ACTION: Ben to ask Shane about DOCTYPE and validation.
15:22:46 <msporny> ack Ralph
15:22:46 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment regarding @profile and namespace document
15:24:12 <msporny> Ralph: The second part of TimBL's comment was that @profile should be a SHOULD or not.
15:24:50 <msporny> Ralph: The point there that we might want to consider is that we're really extending the definition of XHTML 1 documents.
15:25:17 <msporny> Ralph: TimBL said that rather than putting @profile in there, we should declare it in the namespace document.
15:25:30 <msporny> Ben: Are we updating the XHTML namespace document?
15:25:37 <msporny> Steven: I don't think we need to personally.
15:25:45 <msporny> Ben: How does this validate with Schema, then?
15:26:01 <msporny> Ben: How do we validate the additional properties?
15:26:26 <msporny> Steven: We can update the namespace document... 
15:26:26 <Ralph> the namespace document and the schema document are not the same thing
15:26:36 <msporny> Ben: The namespace document is not the schema document...
15:26:39 <msporny> Steven: Yes.
15:26:51 <msporny> Ben: Where is this extra module then?
15:27:21 <msporny> Steven: The idea is that you validate the document against a Schema..
15:27:26 <Ralph> q+ to clarify that we're talking about http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
15:27:31 <msporny> Ben: How does follow-your-nose fit in here?
15:27:49 <msporny> Steven: It depends on what you mean... the XHTML2 working group were talking about this.
15:28:21 <msporny> Steven: if you don't want to put the DOCTYPE in, we can use @version="..."
15:28:36 <msporny> Steven: That would be what says that the document is XHTML+RDFa.
15:29:08 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to clarify that we're talking about http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
15:29:15 <msporny> Ben: If we go down the xhtml namespace route, is there anything that's going to point to RDFa?
15:30:07 <msporny> Ralph: We're not interested in Schema documents, we're interested in whats at the end of the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml URI.
15:31:03 <msporny> Ralph: Tim said that we can add to the namespace document, the declaration that says the interpretation of these RDFa attributes are the following...
15:31:28 <msporny> Ralph: So what does the XHTML2 working group think about that?
15:31:40 <msporny> Ralph: Is modification to the namespace document a process in XHTML2.
15:32:05 <msporny> Steven: No, we don't feel strongly about that document... documents at the end of namespace URIs are supposed to be informative.
15:32:43 <msporny> Ralph: TimBL would like that the namespace URI GRDDL to declare a variety of documents at that URI
15:33:00 <msporny> Ralph: One of those would be a machine-readable GRDDL transform that will get RDF out of that document.
15:33:28 <msporny> Ralph: The content of the XHTML namespace document isn't REC and isn't tightly controlled.
15:34:11 <msporny> Ralph: My suggestion, is that in place of the XHTML namespace document, we include in that document that we include enough RDFa to provide the GRDDL transform pointer.
15:34:14 <markbirbeck> q+
15:34:19 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:34:23 <Zakim> +ShaneM
15:34:35 <Ralph> q+ to answer in case Mark asks some good questions
15:34:54 <msporny> ack markbirbeck
15:35:10 <msporny> Mark: I'm not sure if TimBL was suggesting one approach over another.
15:35:19 <msporny> Mark: Ralph seems to be implying that he favors the GRDDL way.
15:35:59 <msporny> Ralph: He's saying that we should take off SHOULD on the @profile... the only thing you need to put in the XHTML document is your new attributes.
15:36:16 <msporny> Ralph: but that's just one path...
15:37:17 <msporny> Mark: Got the impression that he's stating that "you're writing attributes, go with it..."
15:37:30 <msporny> Mark: "for this to be done right, you have now extended XHTML..."
15:37:58 <msporny> Ben: I agree, to keep folks happy we should do that and we should add a GRDDL flag in the namespace document find it.
15:38:03 <msporny> ack Ralph
15:38:03 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to answer in case Mark asks some good questions
15:38:58 <msporny> Ralph: Where GRDDL comes back in, TimBL isn't pushing GRDDL on us - he's saying that we have the opportunity to modify the namespace document.
15:39:41 <msporny> Ralph: We should do it in a way that understands that there are deployed GRDDL things out there, and we should do something where that stuff just works for us.
15:40:01 <msporny> Ralph: He's not saying we should use GRDDL, but we might as way do it in the way GRDDL suggests.
15:40:03 <msporny> Mark: Yup.
15:40:20 <msporny> Mark: The only thing is that there is an issue with circularity.
15:40:37 <msporny> Mark: if you have an RDFa parser that also supports GRDDL... what happens then?
15:41:01 <ShaneM> is a namespace document the document at the end of a namespace URI?
15:41:30 <Steven> yes
15:41:50 <Ralph> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/
15:42:00 <Ralph> Tim suggests we serve http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml as RDDL
15:42:13 <benadida> scribenick: benadida
15:42:23 <msporny> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/
15:42:25 <Ralph> Topic: Test Cases
15:42:43 <benadida> Manu: 14 new tests, starting at 88
15:42:56 <Ralph> -- Test #88 (unreviewed): Interpretation of the CURIE "_:"
15:43:50 <benadida> Mark: the [_:] notation, in Ivan's view, generates a new bnode each time.
15:44:03 <benadida> Manu: a bit confused
15:44:41 <benadida> Mark: we haven't decided that.
15:45:34 <benadida> Mark: this doesn't work in SPARQL, why should it work for us?
15:46:26 <benadida> ... [_:] should act the same way as [_:a]
15:47:00 <benadida> Shane: nothing in the processing rules to do this.
15:47:06 <benadida> Mark: well we do use them to generate bnodes
15:47:21 <benadida> about="[_:bnode1]"
15:47:50 <Ralph> Ben: @about="[_:bnode1]" is a way to refer to a bnode
15:47:52 <benadida> about="[_:]"
15:48:12 <Ralph> ... the dilemna here is how to interpret @about="[_:]" -- i.e. where there's no local name
15:48:17 <markbirbeck> zakim, mute me
15:48:17 <Zakim> markbirbeck should now be muted
15:48:23 <markbirbeck> school's out...
15:48:26 <Ralph> ... so Ivan seems to be hoping that [_:] would be a way to instantiate a local name
15:48:34 <Ralph> ... but that's going too far
15:48:40 <Ralph> ... beyond what sparql and turtle do
15:48:45 <markbirbeck> zakim, unmute me
15:48:45 <Zakim> markbirbeck should no longer be muted
15:49:54 <benadida> ACTION: Mark to double check the _:a bnode notation in RDFa syntax
15:51:17 <ShaneM> I lied - section 6.3.2.4 explains that you can do this.  However, nothing in the curie parsing rules NOR in the processing sequence references it.
15:51:30 <Ralph> Ben: maybe we read too much into what Ivan is trying to do
15:51:34 <Ralph> scribenick: ralph
15:52:45 <Ralph> Mark: [Ivan] suggested that there be a shorthand to not having to keep generating local names
15:53:04 <Ralph> ... the purpose of this test is to verify that the shorthand does not exist
15:53:13 <Ralph> ... the current SPARQL does not match what I think he's requesting
15:54:03 <ShaneM> but I do not understand how you avoid creating a bnode LATER that collides with a bnode that someone put in by hand.
15:54:10 <Ralph> RESOLVED: test 88 accepted
15:54:27 <Ralph> -- Test #91: Non-reserved, un-prefixed CURIE in @property 
15:54:38 <Ralph> Manu: we still generate triples for these
15:55:34 <Ralph> Ben: why the '[]' ?
15:55:40 <Ralph> Manu: ah, we don't really need them
15:56:36 <Ralph> Shane: we removed special @property handling
15:56:47 <Ralph> Ben: :next is normal CURIE resolution
15:57:08 <Ralph> s/[]/[:note]/
16:00:06 <Ralph> Manu: should we add :next to this test case?  I think we test it elsewhere
16:00:27 <Ralph> Ben: good to add :next and :foo to show that this is really just normal CURIE resolution, not about reserved words
16:01:35 <Ralph> RESOLVED: test 91 accepted, with the addition of :foo and removing the '[]' from [:note]
16:01:51 <Ralph> -- Test #92: Tests XMLLiteral content with explicit @datatype
16:01:58 <Ralph> Manu: first of the set of XMLliteral tests
16:02:04 <Ralph> ... note the explicit datatype
16:02:11 <Ralph> ... the SPARQL is missing xmlns
16:02:16 <msporny> SPARQL should look for: E = mc<sup xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">2</sup>: The Most Urgent Problem of Our Time
16:02:52 <Ralph> Ben: make sure to correct test 11
16:03:11 <Ralph> Manu: test 11 does not have an explicit datatype
16:03:16 <Ralph> ... but does need to be corrected
16:03:20 <markbirbeck> Note that the references to using bnodes in @about, etc., are tucked away in section 6.3.2.4. Although it's a normative section, it should really be drawn out more.
16:03:22 <Ralph> ACTION: Manu correct test 11
16:04:58 <Ralph> RESOLVED: test 92 accepted
16:05:13 <Ralph> s/accepted/accepted with fix to add xhtml namespace/
16:05:37 <Ralph> -- Test #93: Tests XMLLiteral content with explicit @datatype (user-data-typed literal)
16:06:11 <Ralph> Manu: the effect here is that the example.org namespace is declared and ex: is _not_ processed as an XMLliteral
16:06:32 <Ralph> s/and ex:/and ex:XMLLiteral/
16:07:39 <Ralph> RESOLVED: test 93 accepted
16:07:57 <Ralph> -- Test #94: Tests XMLLiteral content with explicit @datatype (unusual prefix - bla:) 
16:08:28 <msporny> SPARQL is incorrect, should be: "E = mc<sup xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">2</sup>: The Most Urgent Problem of Our Time"
16:08:32 <Ralph> Manu: the author used a non-typical nsprefix for the RDF namespace but it is recognized properly
16:09:23 <Ralph> RESOLVED: test 94 accepted with correction to XMLliteral to include the XHTML namespace
16:09:44 <Ralph> -- Test #95: No triples with two nested @rel 
16:09:56 <Ralph> Ben: this depends on the resolution to the late-binding-of-triples issue
16:10:04 <Ralph> ... so we should skip this until we resolve that issue
16:10:10 <markbirbeck> Note to Shane and Manu: "_:p" is also mentioned in section 7.
16:10:11 <Ralph> Manu: same for 96, 97, and 98
16:10:32 <Ralph> s/, and 98/
16:10:48 <Ralph> -- Test #98: Single literal in nested pending triples 
16:11:07 <Ralph> Manu: this is a repeat of test 78
16:11:12 <Ralph> ... so we should reject
16:11:46 <Ralph> RESOLVED: test 98 rejected as duplicate
16:12:19 <Ralph> -- Test #99: Preservation of white space in literals
16:12:51 <Ralph> Ben: I thought we'd agreed that all the tests would use normalized whitespace so that parsers who were forced to normalize would be able to cope
16:13:05 <Ralph> ... that was my interpretation of the notes made while I was away
16:13:33 <Ralph> Manu: the intent was to not base the spec on the current implementation of MSIE
16:13:49 <Ralph> ... we wanted to preserve whitespace but not make that required?
16:13:55 <Ralph> Ben: yes, see resolution ...
16:14:05 <benadida> from 02/14: "RDFa will state that whitespace is preserved and note that some implementations might not behave this way"
16:14:30 <Ralph> Manu: so is it OK to have a test case that some implementations might fail?
16:14:46 <Ralph> Ben: the core issue for me is that this text does not render with the newlines preserved
16:15:13 <Ralph> ... so insisting on whitespace preservation breaks the correspondence between what's rendered and what's in the triplestore
16:15:23 <Ralph> ... Steven then brought up PRE
16:15:58 <Ralph> Steven: that the newlines are not rendered on the screen is a characteristic of the rendering, not of the content
16:16:13 <Ralph> ... the CSS might say to render the newlines
16:16:50 <Ralph> ... and the CSS property might change dynamically; you could switch the newlines on and off
16:17:46 <Ralph> Ben: I do know that some HTML authors rely on the fact that they can lay out their source to look pretty and know the rendering will remove the newlines
16:17:54 <Ralph> ... I'd be happier if P were PRE
16:18:03 <Ralph> Steven: that's a halfway solution
16:18:54 <Ralph> Ralph: I think PRE might add confusion
16:19:00 <Ralph> Manu: prefer to keep as is
16:19:04 <Ralph> Ben: OK
16:19:46 <Ralph> Manu: not sure if the SPARQL syntax is correct
16:19:50 <Ralph> Ben: we'll find out :)
16:20:13 <Ralph> Mark: SPARQL spec says you can use "\n"
16:20:52 <Ralph> RESOLVED: test 99 accepted, with addition of "\n" to the SPARQL
16:21:25 <Ralph> s/with addition of "\n" to the SPARQL//
16:21:36 <Ralph> Manu: we won't add "\n" until we discover we have to
16:21:48 <Ralph> Mark: the syntax seems to support both real newlines and "\n"
16:22:25 <Ralph> Ben: the remaining tests (100 - 103) are all about XMLLiteral with explicit namespaces
16:22:42 <Ralph> Manu: yes, but there's one issue we haven't discussed; the order of serialization of XML namespaces
16:22:52 <Ralph> ... the SPARQL assumes a strict order of serialization
16:23:04 <Ralph> Ben: is this a failure of the SPARQL engine?
16:23:06 <Ralph> Manu: not sure
16:23:43 <Ralph> Ben: per last week's discussion, the SPARQL engine should be doing XML canonicalization
16:23:59 <Ralph> ... so if it doesn't match on the triples as expressed, that's a bug in the SPARQL engine
16:24:12 <Ralph> Mark: yeah, that seems right
16:25:04 <Ralph> Ben: it would be nice to write the SPARQL so as to cause the fewest possible failures among the existing SPARQL implementations
16:26:24 <Ralph> Topic: Primer
16:26:40 <Ralph> Ben: I'm hoping to show you a highly updated Primer this weekend
16:26:47 <Ralph> ... takes into account a lot of comments
16:26:51 <ShaneM> I would like to recomment tha tyou have Roland (XHTML WG Chair) read it.  He has had trouble with our Primer in the past.
16:26:59 <ShaneM> s/tha tyou/that you/
16:27:32 <Ralph> Ben: I'm happy for continued comments but I'm going to try to hold to a specific new approach that I'm taking
16:27:53 <Ralph> [adjourned]
16:27:56 <Zakim> -markbirbeck
16:27:57 <Zakim> -Steven
16:27:57 <Zakim> -Ben_Adida
16:27:59 <Zakim> -ShaneM
16:28:02 <Zakim> -Ralph
16:28:03 <msporny> Ralph, do you want me to clean up the minutes?
16:28:23 <Ralph> sure, Manu, please :)
16:28:25 <Zakim> -msporny
16:28:26 <Zakim> SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended
16:28:27 <Zakim> Attendees were Steven, Ralph, msporny, Ben_Adida, markbirbeck, ShaneM
16:28:35 <Ralph> rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:28:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph
16:29:10 <msporny> I'll do that and e-mail them to you :)
16:29:17 <msporny> ciao :)
16:29:34 <msporny> no problemo :)
16:29:50 <Ralph> zakim, bye
16:29:50 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfa
16:30:06 <Ralph> rrsagent, bye
16:30:06 <RRSAgent> I see 12 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-actions.rdf :
16:30:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ben to follow up on media type discussion with Steven, Ralph, and TAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action08] [1]
16:30:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-irc#T15-08-27
16:30:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Manu to add test cases for xmlliterals with namespace preservation, including one where the xmlliteral re-declares one of the namespaces [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] [2]
16:30:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-irc#T15-08-55
16:30:06 <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] [3]
16:30:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-irc#T15-09-08
16:30:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] [4]
16:30:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-irc#T15-09-20
16:30:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] [5]
16:30:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-irc#T15-09-44
16:30:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Manu write a response to Christian Hoertnagl for issue 7 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/21-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] [6]
16:30:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-irc#T15-10-00
16:30:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ben and Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl. [7]
16:30:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-irc#T15-10-58
16:30:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [8]
16:30:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-irc#T15-11-19
16:30:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] [9]
16:30:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-irc#T15-11-39
16:30:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ben to ask Shane about DOCTYPE and validation. [10]
16:30:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-irc#T15-22-40
16:30:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Mark to double check the _:a bnode notation in RDFa syntax [11]
16:30:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-irc#T15-49-54
16:30:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Manu correct test 11 [12]
16:30:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-irc#T16-03-22