14:27:15 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 14:27:15 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc 14:27:25 Zakim has joined #rdfa 14:27:30 zakim, this will be rdfa 14:27:30 ok, Steven; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 33 minutes 14:27:41 rrsagent, make log public 14:28:10 I have to pick up the kids, so may be marginally late 14:36:40 Steven_ has joined #rdfa 14:36:52 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 14:47:46 msporny has joined #rdfa 14:59:52 Ralph has joined #rdfa 15:00:59 SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started 15:01:05 Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML Task Force 15:01:07 +ShaneM 15:01:44 +Ralph 15:02:07 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0026.html 15:02:23 zakim, dial steven-617 15:02:23 ok, Steven_; the call is being made 15:02:24 +Steven 15:02:24 -> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html previous 2008-03-27 15:03:35 + +1.610.804.aaaa 15:03:41 +??P9 15:03:48 zakim, I am ??P9 15:03:48 +msporny; got it 15:04:23 - +1.610.804.aaaa 15:06:36 +Ben_Adida 15:06:47 markbirbeck has joined #rdfa 15:06:47 benadida has joined #rdfa 15:06:49 Chair: Ben 15:06:59 zakim, code? 15:06:59 the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck 15:07:44 +markbirbeck 15:07:54 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose markbirbeck 15:08:03 scribe: Ralph 15:10:11 +1 15:10:36 Ben: propose not to discuss TAG's feedback on CURIEs here in this telecon 15:11:01 test 15:11:04 ... TAG's feedback is directed to XHTML2 WG and not RDFa 15:11:16 ACTION: Ben and Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07] 15:11:20 -- continues 15:11:43 [DONE] ACTION: Ben to ask Shane about DOCTYPE and validation. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action10] 15:12:02 Ben: we were talking about changing 'SHOULD have a DOCTYPE' to 'MAY have a DOCTYPE' 15:12:10 +1 15:12:12 Yes 15:12:17 ... Shane made the point that 'SHOULD' is already optional, so why change anything? 15:12:27 Manu: SHOULD is stronger than MAY 15:12:41 ... it says "you really really should do this unless you have a good reason not to' 15:12:58 Shane: we're saying that if you want to validate your document you SHOULD have a DOCTYPE 15:13:11 But don't we use the DOCTYPE for follow your nose? 15:13:13 Ben: what if in the next year the W3C validater no longer requires DOCTYPE? 15:13:23 ... do we make our spec dependent on the current state of validation? 15:13:55 How about: SHOULD use a DOCTYPE, but if not then version="XHTML+RDFa 1.0" 15:14:05 Mark: SHOULD has wiggle room 15:14:33 Shane: MAY is a very strange thing to say when you're talking about document conformance 15:14:39 ... MAY is used to talk about implementation conformance 15:14:53 Ben: I think we should leave it as SHOULD 15:15:09 ... and possibly add a note commenting about validation 15:15:19 I am happy with either 15:15:25 Ralph: what does XHTML1 say about DOCTYPE? 15:15:55 Shane: DOCTYPE is required in XHTML 1.1 and SHOULD in XHTML 1.1 2nd edition 15:16:12 Ben: so we shouldn't weaken the requirements from the host language 15:16:19 ... our response to Tim can point to the host language 15:16:24 +1 for SHOULD 15:17:34 I wish there were an alternative for defining character entities 15:17:35 PROPOSE: that we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as follows 'SHOULD leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no longer requires DOCTYPE' 15:17:39 And also point out that "SHOULD" is optional already. 15:17:52 +1 15:18:20 Steven: do we want to say that if there is no DOCTYPE then there must be @version="XHTML+RDFa" 15:18:44 Ralph: no. I thought we agreed last week that we'd update the namespace document 15:19:02 Shane: no objection to updating the namespace document but it does nothing for announcement 15:19:30 ... what does something for announcement is if we agree that all XHTML languages have these new attributes 15:20:08 ... and that has impact outside the XHTML2 WG 15:20:34 Steven: I think we're capable of changing the namespace document 15:20:51 ... we could even turn the namespace document into an RDFa document 15:21:25 PROPOSE: that we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as follows 'SHOULD leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no longer requires DOCTYPE', that we *not* require HTML version=, and that we update the XHTML namespace document accordingly. 15:21:37 +1 15:22:21 RESOLVED: that we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as follows 'SHOULD leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no longer requires DOCTYPE', that we *not* require HTML version=, and that we update the XHTML namespace document accordingly. 15:22:41 rrsagent,make minutes 15:22:41 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Steven 15:22:45 [DONE] ACTION: Manu correct test 11 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] 15:23:02 [DONE] ACTION: Mark to double check the _:a bnode notation in RDFa syntax [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] 15:23:11 Mark: done during last week's call 15:23:17 s/RESOLVED/RESOLUTION/ 15:23:22 rrsagent,make mintes 15:23:22 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make mintes', Steven. Try /msg RRSAgent help 15:23:25 ... Shane noted that it was not mentioned anywhere but then we found it 15:23:28 rrsagent, make minutes 15:23:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Steven 15:23:43 Shane: it's mentioned in an informative section and should be moved up to the normative processing rules 15:23:54 Mark: you have to piece together information from 3 parts 15:24:19 RESOLVED: we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as follows 'SHOULD leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no longer requires DOCTYPE', that we *not* require HTML version=, and that we update the XHTML namespace document accordingly. 15:24:27 rrsagent, make minutes 15:24:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Steven 15:25:08 ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section 15:25:31 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] 15:25:33 -- continues 15:25:56 Ben: Fabien did update his transform but it's not yet under W3C software license on the W3C site 15:26:07 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] 15:26:09 -- continues 15:27:04 ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] 15:27:05 -- continues 15:27:16 ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] 15:27:29 -- continues 15:27:41 Manu: almost done. I have to respond to some comments from DanC 15:28:02 ACTION: Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] 15:28:04 -- continues 15:28:09 ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] 15:28:10 -- continues 15:28:57 i/scribe: ralph/Topic: Action Review 15:29:35 Topic: ISSUE-102: use a name other than @instanceof 15:29:46 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/102 issue 102 15:29:51 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0211.html 15:30:43 Ben: poll around the table? 15:31:04 Steven: I'm in favor of a new name. I posted a list of ~50. I didn't propose a favorite 15:31:39 Mark: [each of us] needs to argue in favor of one position 15:31:52 Steven: I'd be happy with @kind 15:32:07 Ben: from mail, @kind and @typeof seem to be bubbling up high 15:32:53 Steven: @typeof has the same prior use issues that @instanceof had 15:33:15 Mark: lots of suggestions have been made and each has had problems. 15:33:37 ... I think @instanceof is fine 15:34:19 ... the only alternative that works for me is @typeof 15:35:57 ... people know what "type" means even if they're not fully conversant in set theory 15:36:01 Manu: @typeof 15:36:26 ... I consider how easy it is to explain to a normal Web developer 15:36:43 ... I've never really liked @instanceof 15:37:30

15:38:17 q+ 15:38:31 Ralph: @typeof feels like the wrong direction to me 15:39:00 ... but I don't feel strongly between @instanceof and @typeof 15:39:05 ... I think we could justify either 15:39:18 Shane: @typeof is OK with me 15:39:27 Steven: we're addressing the microformats crowd 15:39:44 ... it's nice of the words suggest something without having to refer to RDF Concepts 15:39:52 s/Concepts/concepts/ 15:40:34 Mark: but we should be careful not to say something that's wrong in the world of RDF concepts 15:40:52 ... e.g. 'contains' doesn't have an RDF interpretation 15:42:09 Ben: both @kind and @typeof are superior to @instanceof 15:43:15 ... I'm ok with @typeof but single-word things are nice 15:43:33 ... @kind is less likely to receive complaints 15:44:15 ... and telling people it's 'kind like mankind' 15:44:25 [Personkind :) ] 15:44:46 Mark: I don't doubt that @kind can be explained 15:44:57 ... and isn't this very close to the Germanic ? 15:45:34 ... do we even want to have to send the one-line 'kind like mankind' mail? 15:46:01 ... I think @kind would generate more questions than @typeof 15:47:07 Steven: I prefer @typeof to @instanceof 15:48:20 PROPOSE: change @instanceof to @typeof 15:48:28 +1 15:48:34 no objection 15:48:34 +1 15:48:49 +1 15:49:56 +1 15:50:26 abstain 15:50:33 RESOLVED: change @instanceof to @typeof 15:50:54 ACTION: Mark and Shane update Syntax to change @instanceof to @typeof 15:51:08 ACTION: Manu update test cases to change @instanceof to @typeof 15:51:10 I abstain because I think it is a bad choice, but I don't expect anything I suggest will gain traction, since I've already tried so many 15:52:45 Ben: does this require another Last Call? 15:53:28 Ralph: if we believe there will be objections then it's less costly to do another Last Call than to discover objections in CR 15:53:37 Shane: we should get Yahoo!'s feedback 15:53:49 I would like to see a new test case that uses @instanceof and should fail 15:54:05 ACTION: Ben write to Micah for feedback on change to @typeof 15:57:16 Topic: ISSUE-101: garbage-collecting useless triples (or not?) 15:57:24 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/101 issue 101 15:58:01 Ben: "late binding" is better terminology than "garbage collection", as Shane noted 15:58:21 I have to leave, but for the record I am in favor of generating these triples even if they are meaningless. Or rather, I don't mind either way. 15:58:37 +q 15:58:55 -ShaneM 15:59:15 Mark: the irony is frustrating as it only comes from Ivan's notes 15:59:46 ... it was purely by chance that I discovered that by moving something outside of the recursion we could eliminate these triples 16:00:19 ... this came as a side-effect of fixing a bug uncovered during SWD WG review 16:01:42 ... it's incorrect to say this is impossible to handle this in XSLT 16:02:21 ... I am, however, worried about introducing other problems if we change this 16:03:13 Ben: my parser is conformant in every way except this one; I've just never made this change 16:03:23 Manu: I prefer keeping the current rule set as is 16:04:07 q+ 16:04:37 ... I don't see a use case for all these nested @rels 16:05:19 ... I don't see a use case for building up triples with all these meaningless bnodes 16:06:11 ... I don't see sufficient benefits to this change 16:06:49 Mark: while I agree with Manu, there's an opposing view 16:07:16 ... one of the consequences of the error that I fixed is that when there are multiple @property as the child of a hanging triple you repeat the hanging thing 16:07:47 ... you could argue that if we're leaving things as they are then it's not a big leap to asking us to eliminate _all_ redundant triples 16:08:10 ... I wonder if we're setting ourselves up to something 16:08:24 ... it may be more honest to admit there's stuff lying around 16:08:57 Ben: it could seem inconsistent to keep this flag here to get rid of redundant triples yet keep redundant triples elsewhere 16:09:25 s/keep redundant/keep duplicate/ 16:09:34 Steven: I don't have a strong feeling either way 16:10:56 Ralph: I'm concerned that if we make this change we should do more testing 16:11:26 q+ 16:12:11 Ben: if this is an issue that is really needling a few people and it takes us a few weeks to test, that seems reasonable to me 16:12:38 Mark: the extra complexity in the rules is not to do with this issue but to deal with a bug in the recursion spotted by the SWD review 16:12:55 ... I noted that my fix to the recursion could also address something Ivan noted 16:13:25 Ben: the complexity may just be a perception 16:14:06 ... taking 3 weeks to resolve this may be worthwhile 16:14:29 Mark: the completion of incomplete triples can be made conditional 16:14:44 ... could make a tiny change to _always_ complete triples 16:15:10 ... this might have less risk of new bugs but wouldn't produce a big simplification 16:15:24 Manu: we should be very careful about why we're making this change 16:15:36 ... and I don't see that a change here will reduce the complexity of the rules 16:16:06 ... the only argument [that persuades me] is that people will be building up their triples in this particular way by creating lots of bnodes 16:16:18 ... if it doesn't simplify the rules then it won't simplify the implmentation 16:16:29 Ben: but we have an explicit comment from Micah to that effect 16:17:04 Regrets for next week 16:17:09 Mark: but [Micah's comment] mis-identifies where the complexity is coming from 16:17:23 ... Micah is seeing the recursion as complex in order to get rid of extra triples 16:17:42 ... but the recursion is there to handle intervening markup 16:18:10 ... my reference to 'extra triples' in the spec is misleading people to think that's the reason for the recursion 16:18:12 gotta go 16:18:46 ... I still think it's an easy change but as we all know, any change brings a risk of introducing new bugs 16:18:59 Ralph: and I'm ok with 3 weeks to test if we believe the change is useful 16:19:06 Ben: I'm also ok with 3 weeks 16:19:14 ... I feel strongly that this could be misleading 16:19:31 ... my concern was always about authors and what could be confusing to them 16:19:46 ... DanBri seems to think this is actually _wrong_ 16:20:59 Ben: Steven and Shane don't seem to feel strongly either way 16:21:24 Mark: if there's no other reason to repeat Last Call, I'd leave the spec as is 16:23:45 Ralph: I'm mostly concerned about leaving adequate testing time if we make this change 16:24:00 ... in particular, we won't likely get a new cleanroom implementation 16:24:13 Ben: I'm willing to do a new clean room implementation 16:24:27 Manu: I don't see a strong reason to change 16:27:22 -markbirbeck 16:27:41 ... but adding 3 weeks to the schedule bothers me 16:27:45 Sorry about that, but I have to fax off a large document, so need the phone. :) 16:28:41 tell me about it..... 16:28:45 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0256.html 16:33:33 PROPOSED: Modify processing rules per ISSUE-101 to process bnode-only triples 16:33:51 PROPOSED: Modify processing rules per ISSUE-101 to process and produce triples consisting of only bnodes 16:35:05 Ralph: Shane and Mark seem to lean on the side of keeping the triples 16:35:22 Ralph: Steven seems to be abstaining 16:35:44 Ralph: I'm ok with the change if Ben does a cleanroom implementation and we add time to test 16:35:57 +1 to proposal 16:37:21 +1, only if the group is okay with extending testing for another 3-4 weeks and Ben has a cleanroom implementation. I don't particularly agree that the change is helpful, but others feel that this will help authors. 16:37:47 RESOLVED: Modify processing rules per ISSUE-101 to process bnode-only triples 16:38:15 Ralph: we don't actually know if Steven, Mark, and Shane agree to the +3 weeks so they'll have to object if that's the case 16:51:00 -msporny 16:51:00 -Ralph 16:51:02 -Ben_Adida 16:51:51 zakim, list attendees 16:51:51 As of this point the attendees have been ShaneM, Ralph, Steven, +1.610.804.aaaa, msporny, Ben_Adida, markbirbeck 16:51:58 rrsagent, please draft minutes 16:51:58 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph 16:52:55 i/scribe: Ralph/Topic: Action Review 16:53:01 [adjourned] 16:53:03 rrsagent, please draft minutes 16:53:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph 16:53:42 rrsagent, bye 16:53:42 I see 11 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-actions.rdf : 16:53:42 ACTION: Ben and Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07] [1] 16:53:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-11-16 16:53:42 ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section [2] 16:53:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-25-08 16:53:42 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] 16:53:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-25-31 16:53:42 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] [4] 16:53:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-26-07 16:53:42 ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] [5] 16:53:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-27-04 16:53:42 ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] [6] 16:53:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-27-16 16:53:42 ACTION: Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [7] 16:53:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-28-02 16:53:42 ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] [8] 16:53:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-28-09 16:53:42 ACTION: Mark and Shane update Syntax to change @instanceof to @typeof [9] 16:53:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-50-54 16:53:42 ACTION: Manu update test cases to change @instanceof to @typeof [10] 16:53:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-51-08 16:53:42 ACTION: Ben write to Micah for feedback on change to @typeof [11] 16:53:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-54-05