IRC log of rdfa on 2008-04-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:27:15 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #rdfa

14:27:15 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc

14:27:25 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #rdfa

14:27:30 [Steven]

zakim, this will be rdfa

14:27:30 [Zakim]

ok, Steven; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 33 minutes

14:27:41 [Steven]

rrsagent, make log public

14:28:10 [Steven]

I have to pick up the kids, so may be marginally late

14:36:40 [Steven_]

Steven_ has joined #rdfa

14:36:52 [ShaneM]

ShaneM has joined #rdfa

14:47:46 [msporny]

msporny has joined #rdfa

14:59:52 [Ralph]

Ralph has joined #rdfa

15:00:59 [Zakim]

SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started

15:01:05 [Ralph]

Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML Task Force

15:01:07 [Zakim]

+ShaneM

15:01:44 [Zakim]

+Ralph

15:02:07 [Ralph]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0026.html

15:02:23 [Steven_]

zakim, dial steven-617

15:02:23 [Zakim]

ok, Steven_; the call is being made

15:02:24 [Zakim]

+Steven

15:02:24 [Ralph]

-> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html previous 2008-03-27

15:03:35 [Zakim]

+ +1.610.804.aaaa

15:03:41 [Zakim]

+??P9

15:03:48 [msporny]

zakim, I am ??P9

15:03:48 [Zakim]

+msporny; got it

15:04:23 [Zakim]

- +1.610.804.aaaa

15:06:36 [Zakim]

+Ben_Adida

15:06:47 [markbirbeck]

markbirbeck has joined #rdfa

15:06:47 [benadida]

benadida has joined #rdfa

15:06:49 [Ralph]

Chair: Ben

15:06:59 [markbirbeck]

zakim, code?

15:06:59 [Zakim]

the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck

15:07:44 [Zakim]

+markbirbeck

15:07:54 [Zakim]

Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose markbirbeck

15:08:03 [Ralph]

scribe: Ralph

15:10:11 [Steven_]

+1

15:10:36 [Ralph]

Ben: propose not to discuss TAG's feedback on CURIEs here in this telecon

15:11:01 [Steven]

test

15:11:04 [Ralph]

... TAG's feedback is directed to XHTML2 WG and not RDFa

15:11:16 [Ralph]

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 [Ralph]

-- continues

15:11:43 [Ralph]

[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 [Ralph]

Ben: we were talking about changing 'SHOULD have a DOCTYPE' to 'MAY have a DOCTYPE'

15:12:10 [Steven]

+1

15:12:12 [Steven]

Yes

15:12:17 [Ralph]

... Shane made the point that 'SHOULD' is already optional, so why change anything?

15:12:27 [Ralph]

Manu: SHOULD is stronger than MAY

15:12:41 [Ralph]

... it says "you really really should do this unless you have a good reason not to'

15:12:58 [Ralph]

Shane: we're saying that if you want to validate your document you SHOULD have a DOCTYPE

15:13:11 [Steven]

But don't we use the DOCTYPE for follow your nose?

15:13:13 [Ralph]

Ben: what if in the next year the W3C validater no longer requires DOCTYPE?

15:13:23 [Ralph]

... do we make our spec dependent on the current state of validation?

15:13:55 [Steven]

How about: SHOULD use a DOCTYPE, but if not then version="XHTML+RDFa 1.0"

15:14:05 [Ralph]

Mark: SHOULD has wiggle room

15:14:33 [Ralph]

Shane: MAY is a very strange thing to say when you're talking about document conformance

15:14:39 [Ralph]

... MAY is used to talk about implementation conformance

15:14:53 [Ralph]

Ben: I think we should leave it as SHOULD

15:15:09 [Ralph]

... and possibly add a note commenting about validation

15:15:19 [Steven]

I am happy with either

15:15:25 [Ralph]

Ralph: what does XHTML1 say about DOCTYPE?

15:15:55 [Ralph]

Shane: DOCTYPE is required in XHTML 1.1 and SHOULD in XHTML 1.1 2nd edition

15:16:12 [Ralph]

Ben: so we shouldn't weaken the requirements from the host language

15:16:19 [Ralph]

... our response to Tim can point to the host language

15:16:24 [msporny]

+1 for SHOULD

15:17:34 [Steven]

I wish there were an alternative for defining character entities

15:17:35 [benadida]

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 [ShaneM]

And also point out that "SHOULD" is optional already.

15:17:52 [msporny]

+1

15:18:20 [Ralph]

Steven: do we want to say that if there is no DOCTYPE then there must be @version="XHTML+RDFa"

15:18:44 [Ralph]

Ralph: no. I thought we agreed last week that we'd update the namespace document

15:19:02 [Ralph]

Shane: no objection to updating the namespace document but it does nothing for announcement

15:19:30 [Ralph]

... what does something for announcement is if we agree that all XHTML languages have these new attributes

15:20:08 [Ralph]

... and that has impact outside the XHTML2 WG

15:20:34 [Ralph]

Steven: I think we're capable of changing the namespace document

15:20:51 [Ralph]

... we could even turn the namespace document into an RDFa document

15:21:25 [benadida]

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 [Steven]

+1

15:22:21 [benadida]

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 [Steven]

rrsagent,make minutes

15:22:41 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Steven

15:22:45 [Ralph]

[DONE] ACTION: Manu correct test 11 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]

15:23:02 [Ralph]

[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 [Ralph]

Mark: done during last week's call

15:23:17 [Steven]

s/RESOLVED/RESOLUTION/

15:23:22 [Steven]

rrsagent,make mintes

15:23:22 [RRSAgent]

I'm logging. I don't understand 'make mintes', Steven. Try /msg RRSAgent help

15:23:25 [Ralph]

... Shane noted that it was not mentioned anywhere but then we found it

15:23:28 [Steven]

rrsagent, make minutes

15:23:28 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Steven

15:23:43 [Ralph]

Shane: it's mentioned in an informative section and should be moved up to the normative processing rules

15:23:54 [Ralph]

Mark: you have to piece together information from 3 parts

15:24:19 [Ralph]

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 [Steven]

rrsagent, make minutes

15:24:27 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Steven

15:25:08 [benadida]

ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section

15:25:31 [Ralph]

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 [Ralph]

-- continues

15:25:56 [Ralph]

Ben: Fabien did update his transform but it's not yet under W3C software license on the W3C site

15:26:07 [Ralph]

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 [Ralph]

-- continues

15:27:04 [Ralph]

ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]

15:27:05 [Ralph]

-- continues

15:27:16 [Ralph]

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 [Ralph]

-- continues

15:27:41 [Ralph]

Manu: almost done. I have to respond to some comments from DanC

15:28:02 [Ralph]

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 [Ralph]

-- continues

15:28:09 [Ralph]

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 [Ralph]

-- continues

15:28:57 [Ralph]

i/scribe: ralph/Topic: Action Review

15:29:35 [Ralph]

Topic: ISSUE-102: use a name other than @instanceof

15:29:46 [Ralph]

-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/102 issue 102

15:29:51 [benadida]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0211.html

15:30:43 [Ralph]

Ben: poll around the table?

15:31:04 [Ralph]

Steven: I'm in favor of a new name. I posted a list of ~50. I didn't propose a favorite

15:31:39 [Ralph]

Mark: [each of us] needs to argue in favor of one position

15:31:52 [Ralph]

Steven: I'd be happy with @kind

15:32:07 [Ralph]

Ben: from mail, @kind and @typeof seem to be bubbling up high

15:32:53 [Ralph]

Steven: @typeof has the same prior use issues that @instanceof had

15:33:15 [Ralph]

Mark: lots of suggestions have been made and each has had problems.

15:33:37 [Ralph]

... I think @instanceof is fine

15:34:19 [Ralph]

... the only alternative that works for me is @typeof

15:35:57 [Ralph]

... people know what "type" means even if they're not fully conversant in set theory

15:36:01 [Ralph]

Manu: @typeof

15:36:26 [Ralph]

... I consider how easy it is to explain to a normal Web developer

15:36:43 [Ralph]

... I've never really liked @instanceof

15:37:30 [Steven]

<p contains="cal:Vevent">

15:38:17 [Steven]

q+

15:38:31 [Ralph]

Ralph: @typeof feels like the wrong direction to me

15:39:00 [Ralph]

... but I don't feel strongly between @instanceof and @typeof

15:39:05 [Ralph]

... I think we could justify either

15:39:18 [Ralph]

Shane: @typeof is OK with me

15:39:27 [Ralph]

Steven: we're addressing the microformats crowd

15:39:44 [Ralph]

... it's nice of the words suggest something without having to refer to RDF Concepts

15:39:52 [Ralph]

s/Concepts/concepts/

15:40:34 [Ralph]

Mark: but we should be careful not to say something that's wrong in the world of RDF concepts

15:40:52 [Ralph]

... e.g. 'contains' doesn't have an RDF interpretation

15:42:09 [Ralph]

Ben: both @kind and @typeof are superior to @instanceof

15:43:15 [Ralph]

... I'm ok with @typeof but single-word things are nice

15:43:33 [Ralph]

... @kind is less likely to receive complaints

15:44:15 [Ralph]

... and telling people it's 'kind like mankind'

15:44:25 [Ralph]

[Personkind :) ]

15:44:46 [Ralph]

Mark: I don't doubt that @kind can be explained

15:44:57 [Ralph]

... and isn't this very close to the Germanic ?

15:45:34 [Ralph]

... do we even want to have to send the one-line 'kind like mankind' mail?

15:46:01 [Ralph]

... I think @kind would generate more questions than @typeof

15:47:07 [Ralph]

Steven: I prefer @typeof to @instanceof

15:48:20 [Ralph]

PROPOSE: change @instanceof to @typeof

15:48:28 [msporny]

+1

15:48:34 [Ralph]

no objection

15:48:34 [ShaneM]

+1

15:48:49 [markbirbeck]

+1

15:49:56 [benadida]

+1

15:50:26 [Steven]

abstain

15:50:33 [Ralph]

RESOLVED: change @instanceof to @typeof

15:50:54 [Ralph]

ACTION: Mark and Shane update Syntax to change @instanceof to @typeof

15:51:08 [Ralph]

ACTION: Manu update test cases to change @instanceof to @typeof

15:51:10 [Steven]

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 [Ralph]

Ben: does this require another Last Call?

15:53:28 [Ralph]

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 [Ralph]

Shane: we should get Yahoo!'s feedback

15:53:49 [ShaneM]

I would like to see a new test case that uses @instanceof and should fail

15:54:05 [Ralph]

ACTION: Ben write to Micah for feedback on change to @typeof

15:57:16 [Ralph]

Topic: ISSUE-101: garbage-collecting useless triples (or not?)

15:57:24 [Ralph]

-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/101 issue 101

15:58:01 [Ralph]

Ben: "late binding" is better terminology than "garbage collection", as Shane noted

15:58:21 [ShaneM]

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 [ShaneM]

+q

15:58:55 [Zakim]

-ShaneM

15:59:15 [Ralph]

Mark: the irony is frustrating as it only comes from Ivan's notes

15:59:46 [Ralph]

... it was purely by chance that I discovered that by moving something outside of the recursion we could eliminate these triples

16:00:19 [Ralph]

... this came as a side-effect of fixing a bug uncovered during SWD WG review

16:01:42 [Ralph]

... it's incorrect to say this is impossible to handle this in XSLT

16:02:21 [Ralph]

... I am, however, worried about introducing other problems if we change this

16:03:13 [Ralph]

Ben: my parser is conformant in every way except this one; I've just never made this change

16:03:23 [Ralph]

Manu: I prefer keeping the current rule set as is

16:04:07 [markbirbeck]

q+

16:04:37 [Ralph]

... I don't see a use case for all these nested @rels

16:05:19 [Ralph]

... I don't see a use case for building up triples with all these meaningless bnodes

16:06:11 [Ralph]

... I don't see sufficient benefits to this change

16:06:49 [Ralph]

Mark: while I agree with Manu, there's an opposing view

16:07:16 [Ralph]

... 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 [Ralph]

... 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 [Ralph]

... I wonder if we're setting ourselves up to something

16:08:24 [Ralph]

... it may be more honest to admit there's stuff lying around

16:08:57 [Ralph]

Ben: it could seem inconsistent to keep this flag here to get rid of redundant triples yet keep redundant triples elsewhere

16:09:25 [Ralph]

s/keep redundant/keep duplicate/

16:09:34 [Ralph]

Steven: I don't have a strong feeling either way

16:10:56 [Ralph]

Ralph: I'm concerned that if we make this change we should do more testing

16:11:26 [msporny]

q+

16:12:11 [Ralph]

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 [Ralph]

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 [Ralph]

... I noted that my fix to the recursion could also address something Ivan noted

16:13:25 [Ralph]

Ben: the complexity may just be a perception

16:14:06 [Ralph]

... taking 3 weeks to resolve this may be worthwhile

16:14:29 [Ralph]

Mark: the completion of incomplete triples can be made conditional

16:14:44 [Ralph]

... could make a tiny change to _always_ complete triples

16:15:10 [Ralph]

... this might have less risk of new bugs but wouldn't produce a big simplification

16:15:24 [Ralph]

Manu: we should be very careful about why we're making this change

16:15:36 [Ralph]

... and I don't see that a change here will reduce the complexity of the rules

16:16:06 [Ralph]

... 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 [Ralph]

... if it doesn't simplify the rules then it won't simplify the implmentation

16:16:29 [Ralph]

Ben: but we have an explicit comment from Micah to that effect

16:17:04 [Steven]

Regrets for next week

16:17:09 [Ralph]

Mark: but [Micah's comment] mis-identifies where the complexity is coming from

16:17:23 [Ralph]

... Micah is seeing the recursion as complex in order to get rid of extra triples

16:17:42 [Ralph]

... but the recursion is there to handle intervening markup

16:18:10 [Ralph]

... my reference to 'extra triples' in the spec is misleading people to think that's the reason for the recursion

16:18:12 [Steven]

gotta go

16:18:46 [Ralph]

... 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]

Ralph: and I'm ok with 3 weeks to test if we believe the change is useful

16:19:06 [Ralph]

Ben: I'm also ok with 3 weeks

16:19:14 [Ralph]

... I feel strongly that this could be misleading

16:19:31 [Ralph]

... my concern was always about authors and what could be confusing to them

16:19:46 [Ralph]

... DanBri seems to think this is actually _wrong_

16:20:59 [Ralph]

Ben: Steven and Shane don't seem to feel strongly either way

16:21:24 [Ralph]

Mark: if there's no other reason to repeat Last Call, I'd leave the spec as is

16:23:45 [Ralph]

Ralph: I'm mostly concerned about leaving adequate testing time if we make this change

16:24:00 [Ralph]

... in particular, we won't likely get a new cleanroom implementation

16:24:13 [Ralph]

Ben: I'm willing to do a new clean room implementation

16:24:27 [Ralph]

Manu: I don't see a strong reason to change

16:27:22 [Zakim]

-markbirbeck

16:27:41 [Ralph]

... but adding 3 weeks to the schedule bothers me

16:27:45 [markbirbeck]

Sorry about that, but I have to fax off a large document, so need the phone. :)

16:28:41 [markbirbeck]

tell me about it.....

16:28:45 [benadida]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0256.html

16:33:33 [Ralph]

PROPOSED: Modify processing rules per ISSUE-101 to process bnode-only triples

16:33:51 [Ralph]

PROPOSED: Modify processing rules per ISSUE-101 to process and produce triples consisting of only bnodes

16:35:05 [Ralph]

Ralph: Shane and Mark seem to lean on the side of keeping the triples

16:35:22 [Ralph]

Ralph: Steven seems to be abstaining

16:35:44 [Ralph]

Ralph: I'm ok with the change if Ben does a cleanroom implementation and we add time to test

16:35:57 [benadida]

+1 to proposal

16:37:21 [msporny]

+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 [Ralph]

RESOLVED: Modify processing rules per ISSUE-101 to process bnode-only triples

16:38:15 [Ralph]

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 [Zakim]

-msporny

16:51:00 [Zakim]

-Ralph

16:51:02 [Zakim]

-Ben_Adida

16:51:51 [Ralph]

zakim, list attendees

16:51:51 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been ShaneM, Ralph, Steven, +1.610.804.aaaa, msporny, Ben_Adida, markbirbeck

16:51:58 [Ralph]

rrsagent, please draft minutes

16:51:58 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph

16:52:55 [Ralph]

i/scribe: Ralph/Topic: Action Review

16:53:01 [Ralph]

[adjourned]

16:53:03 [Ralph]

rrsagent, please draft minutes

16:53:03 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph

16:53:42 [Ralph]

rrsagent, bye

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

I see 11 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-actions.rdf :

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

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 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-11-16

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section [2]

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-25-08

16:53:42 [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]

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-25-31

16:53:42 [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] [4]

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-26-07

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] [5]

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-27-04

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

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 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-27-16

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

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 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-28-02

16:53:42 [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] [8]

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-28-09

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Mark and Shane update Syntax to change @instanceof to @typeof [9]

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-50-54

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Manu update test cases to change @instanceof to @typeof [10]

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-51-08

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: Ben write to Micah for feedback on change to @typeof [11]

16:53:42 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-54-05