14:54:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:54:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-irc
14:54:51 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:54:58 <Ralph> zakim, this will be rdfa
14:54:58 <Zakim> ok, Ralph; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
14:55:03 <Ralph> Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML Task Force
14:55:38 <Ralph> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0105.html
14:55:45 <Ralph> rrsagent, please make record public
14:55:48 <Zakim> SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started
14:55:55 <Zakim> +??P0
14:56:04 <msporny> msporny has joined #rdfa
14:56:17 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-rdfa-minutes.html previous 2008-04-10
14:56:23 <Ralph> zakim, ??p0 is probably Manu
14:56:23 <Zakim> +Manu?; got it
14:56:43 <msporny> hi Ralph :)
14:56:46 <msporny> want me to scribe?
14:56:55 <Ralph> Regrets: Michael, Simone, Shane, Ralph
14:57:02 <Steven> Hi, Like Ralph, and for the same reason, I will be late
14:57:18 <Ralph> [Chairs telecon]
14:57:32 <msporny> Is RSS agent in here yet?
14:57:44 <Ralph> R_R_S Agent is, yes :)
14:58:05 <Ralph> rrsagent, pointer?
14:58:05 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-irc#T14-58-05
14:58:08 <msporny> =P - never noticed that it's RRS agent...
14:59:38 <msporny> scribenick: msporny
15:01:37 <msporny> Chair: Ben
15:03:32 <markbirbeck> markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
15:04:28 <benadida> benadida has joined #rdfa
15:04:40 <Zakim> +Ben_Adida
15:05:35 <markbirbeck> hello everyone
15:06:01 <markbirbeck> I'm not going to be able to make the telecon, I'm afraid...things have been very hectic this week.
15:06:09 <benadida> :(
15:06:12 <benadida> thoughts on primer?
15:06:25 <markbirbeck> I am nearly done on a new draft, but didn't get the few hours I needed to finish it off.
15:06:31 <markbirbeck> Will try to do it tomorrow.
15:06:37 <benadida> yes, that would be really fantastic.
15:06:44 <Steven> I like the primer.
15:06:55 <Steven> I have some small comments on the current one
15:07:17 <markbirbeck> I'm so sorry...but I haven't even read your latest draft. That shows how bad things are! (I normally read it the moment it comes off the press. ;))
15:07:54 <msporny> Regrets: Michael, Simone, Shane, Ralph, Mark
15:08:10 <Steven> I will be late like Ralph (on the chairs call at the moment)
15:08:33 <Steven> I liked the comment about tags not in namespaces being like all files in one folder
15:09:31 <msporny> Ben: Mark hasn't been able to read the Primer yet.
15:09:50 <msporny> Ben: He wanted namespaces and more detail in the Primer.
15:09:56 <msporny> Topic: Action Items
15:10:04 <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]
15:10:07 <benadida> s/namespaces/no namespaces
15:10:26 <msporny> http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
15:10:39 <Zakim> +Ralph
15:10:40 <msporny> -- CONTINUES
15:10:50 <Ralph> [I'm not really here -- listening with half an ear]
15:11:03 <Steven> hmm, Ralph has two phones
15:11:06 <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]
15:11:12 <msporny> -- CONTINUES
15:11:31 <msporny> Ben: I'm waiting on Fabien for that one.
15:11:34 <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]
15:11:37 <msporny> -- CONTINUES
15:11:53 <msporny> Ben: Ralph needs to give an update on the media type discussion.
15:11:59 <Ralph> [yes, I own Ben some language on media types]
15:12:04 <Steven> media type is ongoing within W3C; seems to be going our way
15:12:17 <msporny> ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
15:12:18 <Steven> I think TimBL will say something about it at AC meeting in Beijing
15:12:21 <msporny> -- CONTINUES
15:12:27 <msporny> Ben: Waiting for response from Mark.
15:12:34 <msporny> ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
15:12:36 <msporny> -- CONTINUES
15:12:44 <msporny> ACTION: Mark and Shane update Syntax to change @instanceof to @typeof [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
15:12:45 <Ralph> s/I own/I owe/
15:12:46 <msporny> -- DONE
15:12:55 <msporny> ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action05]
15:12:58 <msporny> -- CONTINUES
15:13:09 <msporny> ACTION: Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
15:13:11 <msporny> -- CONTINUES
15:13:18 <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]
15:13:21 <msporny> -- CONTINUES
15:13:28 <msporny> ACTION: Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
15:13:33 <msporny> -- CONTINUES
15:14:14 <Steven> ha! 
15:14:16 <msporny> Topic: New Primer
15:14:26 <Steven> I have some small comments
15:14:36 <msporny> Ben: Bob Du Charme had some good tweaks to it, which were integrated.
15:14:39 <Steven> Not sure about using the @ notation in the primer
15:14:42 <msporny> Ben: Some of the diagrams were tweaked.
15:15:00 <Steven> There is some confusion between the names of the old and new HTML WGs
15:15:12 <msporny> Ben: @rel, @about - @ notation now documented.
15:15:45 <msporny> Manu: The document looks good to me so far, I think it's ready to go to WG
15:16:02 <msporny> Ben: Ralph said he was astonished it was shorter... but that may mean WG has a negative reaction to that.
15:16:10 <msporny> Ben: I don't think we should lengthen it.
15:16:40 <benadida> Manu: the wiki should fill the gap
15:17:23 <Ralph> I don't think we should bring *everything* from the old Primer back in, but I want more time to look for gaps
15:17:45 <benadida> before we talk to the WG? How much more time?
15:18:18 <Ralph> but, again, if Manu, Steven, and Mark feel the current draft is good enough to replace the WD then I'll accept that consensus
15:18:23 <msporny> Ben: He's not going to Beijing, so he should be able to handle it before next Tuesday.
15:18:40 <Ralph> has Mark replied previously?
15:18:56 <msporny> Ben: Steven seems to only has minor comments, Manu likes the current draft, Mark still needs to respond.
15:18:58 <benadida> Mark has sent private comments that were overall positive but that I cannot count as a full endorsement yet :)
15:19:24 <Ralph> then I propose we show it to the WG and ask for their comments
15:19:33 <benadida> Steven: assuming the chance for minor edits, do you think this is good to send to the WG?
15:19:41 <msporny> Ben: Manu thinks Primer is good enough to go to the WG, minor edits may still need to be done.
15:19:44 <Ralph> s/Steven:/Steven,/
15:19:46 <Steven> I'd be ok with that
15:20:39 <msporny> Ben: Primer could be written in a variety of different ways, we need to push forward and get it out there.
15:22:13 <msporny> Ben: Primer is mainly for people that just know HTML - it's a high level overview.
15:22:51 <Ralph> I absolutely agree that the exposition in the new Primer editor's draft is better; I'm mostly worried about coverage
15:23:37 <msporny> Manu: I think it is a good sign that we're starting to re-use material in the Primer in our presentations on RDFa.
15:23:44 <benadida> a big change in this primer is that we're not going for 100% coverage, we're going for enough coverage to *start* writing RDFa, and then you go to recipes on the wiki for more.
15:23:48 <Ralph> sure, "enough" is a judgement call :)
15:24:00 <msporny> Manu: Really, we should see if Mark is okay with it and if we have that much consensus here, then we should push it to the WG.
15:24:09 <Ralph> I hope that the Wiki material will lead to improved versions of the Primer
15:24:33 <benadida> ACTION: Ben to chat immediately with Mark and see if the Primer is "good enough" for WG review.
15:25:14 <benadida> Steven, if you're reading this, do send a list of the issues with the Primer, happy to incorporate small changes
15:25:26 <Steven> Ben, I will send them tomorrow
15:25:59 <msporny> Topic: XHTML namespace quick resolution
15:26:30 <msporny> Manu: I thought it was supposed to be a GRDDL pointer
15:26:36 <benadida> +1
15:26:37 <msporny> Ben: Yep - same here.
15:27:07 <msporny> Topic: ISSUE-109 and ISSUE-110
15:27:19 <benadida> ISSUE-109: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/109
15:27:35 <benadida> "do something with @cite"
15:27:45 <Ralph> [I'd be happy to offically take an action to draft something for the XHTML namespace document]
15:28:07 <Ralph> -1 to taking up @cite in this version
15:28:19 <msporny> Manu: I agree with Mark's response.
15:28:28 <msporny> Ben: We're in agreement that we shouldn't do anything with @cite.
15:28:36 <msporny> Ben: Mark agrees with that as well.
15:28:45 <msporny> Ben: Don't know what Steven or Michael would say.
15:29:02 <msporny> Ben: Ralph agrees, but he thinks the response should be more complete.
15:29:06 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
15:29:14 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:29:20 <Zakim> +Steven
15:29:42 <msporny> Ralph: For @cite the answers clear, we defer to a future version.
15:29:51 <msporny> Ralph: But we should be more specific in the response.
15:30:01 <msporny> Ben: So we should formally restate Mark's answer?
15:30:49 <msporny> Ralph: Mark gives far too much detail - I don't think we need to give all that detail.
15:30:56 <msporny> Ben: So, we're not doing anything with @cite.
15:30:58 <msporny> Steven: I agree.
15:31:50 <msporny> Steven: We should say we considered it, but there are others that could fit in this category - we decided to defer in the name of simplicity.
15:32:33 <benadida> PROPOSE to resolve ISSUE-109: "We considered @cite but realized that many other attributes would then require RDFa interpretation and that doing so is not simple. We defer this issue to a future version of RDFa."
15:33:05 <msporny> Ralph: We may want to find those discussions.
15:33:15 <msporny> +1 for current PROPOSAL
15:33:20 <Steven> +1
15:33:27 <benadida> RESOLVED ISSUE-109: "We considered @cite but realized that many other attributes would then require RDFa interpretation and that doing so is not simple. We defer this issue to a future version of RDFa."
15:33:43 <msporny> RESOLUTION: ISSUE-109: "We considered @cite but realized that many other attributes would then require RDFa interpretation and that doing so is not simple. We defer this issue to a future version of RDFa.
15:34:24 <benadida> ACTION: Ben to respond to ISSUE-109 with (if possible) pointers to past discussion of @cite
15:34:57 <msporny> Ben: Issue 110 is about @src being subject or object.
15:35:13 <Steven> link to response?
15:35:34 <msporny> Manu: I thought the response was good.
15:35:40 <msporny> one sec, Steven... finding it ...
15:35:57 <benadida> Mark's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0311.html
15:36:17 <msporny> Ben: First on the issue - do we agree we shouldn't re-open it.
15:36:20 <msporny> Manu: Yes.
15:36:22 <msporny> Ralph: Yes.
15:36:37 <msporny> Steven - woof.
15:37:02 <msporny> Steven: Yes, agreed - don't re-open.
15:37:33 <msporny> Ben: We should respond with the summary that Ralph wrote up and a pointer to Mark's e-mail.
15:38:35 <benadida> PROPOSAL: "on ISSUE-110, we considered @src in both subject and object positions, and resolved that the current situation - it's equivalent to @about - is more useful to authors." 
15:38:59 <msporny> +1 for proposal
15:39:04 <msporny> Steven: +1 for proposal
15:39:10 <Ralph> +1
15:39:11 <msporny> Ralph: +1 for proposal
15:39:13 <msporny> RESOLUTION: ISSUE-110: "we considered @src in both subject and object positions, and resolved that the currewe considered @src in both subject and object positions, and resolved that the current situation - it's equivalent to @about - is more useful to authors."nt situation - it's equivalent to @about - is more useful to authors."
15:40:23 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-mobile
15:40:23 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:40:24 <Zakim> +Steven
15:40:31 <msporny> Ben: Steven, Ralph - about the Primer - do you agree that we ask Mark and Michael and see if they're fine with it - and push it forward?
15:40:39 <Steven> zakim, drop steven
15:40:39 <Zakim> 'steven' is ambiguous, Steven
15:40:48 <Steven> zakim, drop steven-mobile
15:40:48 <Zakim> sorry, Steven, I do not see a party named 'steven-mobile'
15:41:02 <Zakim> -Steven
15:41:34 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-mobile
15:41:34 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:41:35 <Zakim> +Steven
15:41:50 <msporny> Ben: we need a document that people are comfortable with pointing people to a document.
15:42:02 <msporny> Ben: Are you okay with that line of thinking?
15:42:08 <msporny> Ralph: Yes - we don't want to hold this up.
15:42:24 <Steven> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:42:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see Manu?, Ben_Adida, Ralph, Steven, Steven (muted)
15:42:25 <Zakim> -Steven
15:42:35 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-mobile
15:42:35 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:42:36 <Zakim> +Steven
15:42:47 <Zakim> -Steven
15:43:53 <msporny> Topic: Test Cases
15:44:05 <msporny> Ben: Is it more useful to do them on the call.
15:44:47 <msporny> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/
15:44:54 <msporny> Steven is now walking down steps :)
15:45:19 <msporny> Manu: First one is test #100
15:46:26 <benadida> xmlns:ex="http://www.example.org#"
15:46:36 <msporny> Manu: Is that correct?
15:48:50 <Ralph> [looking up RFC 3986 http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html to see if that's a legitimate URI]
15:49:58 <msporny> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/0100.xhtml
15:53:01 <Ralph> [actually, http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.2.2 is where we need to look]
15:53:12 <benadida> Manu: we had agreed that the proper canonicalization for our tests involved stuffing all namespaces into each top-level element.
15:53:42 <benadida> Ben: so this will likely fail for Firefox-based JavaScript (mine and Elias's), but that's okay we can document it.
15:57:26 <benadida> TC 100: +1 from Ben
15:57:34 <msporny> TC 100: +1 from Manu
15:57:36 <benadida> TC 101: +1 from Ben
15:57:40 <msporny> TC 101: +1 from Manu
15:59:02 <benadida> TC 102: +1 from Ben
15:59:11 <msporny> Manu: TC 102: +1 from Manu
16:00:42 <benadida> TC103: +1 from Ben
16:01:42 <msporny> TC103: +1 from Manu
16:02:02 <msporny> Ralph: Maybe we should use a different example namespace
16:02:16 <msporny> Ben: Let's change to "http://example.org/"
16:03:16 <msporny> Ralph: Let's change to "http://rdfa.example.org/"
16:04:14 <Ralph> or http://example.org/rdf/
16:04:28 <Ralph> (which has the same number of octets :)
16:06:16 <msporny> Topic: ISSUE-112: RDFa described in purely functional terms? 
16:06:23 <msporny> Ben: In an ideal world, great.
16:06:47 <msporny> Ralph: Agree - it'll take a very long time to do that.
16:06:55 <Ralph> s/very//
16:07:01 <Ralph> I'm not sure how long it will take
16:07:14 <Ralph> but I am pretty sure it will take longer than 2 months and that's too long IMHO
16:08:04 <msporny> Steven: Functional is very nice - but would take longer than we have right now. In a future version, we might want to do it in functional terms.
16:09:07 <msporny> Ralph: It will depend on the author - functional or algorithmic.
16:09:21 <msporny> Steven: It's good for implementors, but isn't so good for authors.
16:09:36 <msporny> Ralph: We'll get feedback over the next year or two.
16:10:20 <benadida> PROPOSE: "on ISSUE-112, we sympathize with the comment, but believe it would take too long to write up a functional description."
16:10:38 <benadida> PROPOSE: "on ISSUE-112, we sympathize with the comment, but believe it would take too long to write up an error-free functional description."
16:12:26 <msporny> Steven: Maybe we can do a normative one which is algorithmic, and a non-normative one that is functional.
16:12:40 <msporny> Ben: We shouldn't commit ourselves to doing something like that right now.
16:12:40 <benadida> PROPOSE: "on ISSUE-112, we sympathize with the comment, but believe it would take too long given the importance of wrapping up RDFa very soon, to write up a functional description."
16:12:53 <msporny> Ralph: Yes, we shouldn't add to the workload that we're currently under.
16:14:41 <benadida> PROPOSE: "on ISSUE-112, we sympathize with the comment, but, given the community pull to finalize RDFa, it would take too long to write up a functional description."
16:14:58 <msporny> +1
16:15:02 <benadida> PROPOSE: "on ISSUE-112, we sympathize with the comment, but, given the community pull to finalize RDFa, it would take too long to write up an error-free functional description."
16:15:02 <Ralph> +1
16:15:19 <benadida> +1 from Steven on the phone
16:15:20 <msporny> RESOLUTION: "on ISSUE-112, we sympathize with the comment, but, given the community pull to finalize RDFa, it would take too long to write up a functional description."
16:18:57 <Ralph> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Apr/0050.html "Draft response to: TAG comments on: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ "CURIE Syntax 1.0"" [Steven 2008-04-16]
16:21:17 <Zakim> -Steven
16:21:18 <Zakim> -Ben_Adida
16:21:33 <Ralph> zakim, list attendees
16:21:33 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Manu?, Ben_Adida, Ralph, Steven
16:21:41 <Ralph> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:21:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph
16:22:52 <Zakim> -Manu?
16:22:53 <Zakim> -Ralph
16:23:00 <Zakim> SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended
16:23:01 <Zakim> Attendees were Manu?, Ben_Adida, Ralph, Steven