14:45:25 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 14:45:25 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-rdfa-irc 14:45:35 Zakim has joined #rdfa 14:46:45 zakim, this will be SW_SWD(RDFa) 14:46:45 ok, msporny; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes 14:47:06 Scribe: Manu Sporny 14:47:17 ScribeNick: msporny 14:47:34 FWIW I am at the XHTML 2 WG meeting now and it might be challenging to attend this meeting too 14:47:39 Meeting: RDF in XHTML Task Force 14:48:03 Chair: Ben Adida 14:48:39 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jun/0110.html 14:49:01 previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-rdfa-minutes 14:50:54 I am unable to attend too 14:51:20 Regrets: Steven Pemberton, Shane McCarron 14:51:36 rrsagent, make minutes public 14:51:36 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', msporny. Try /msg RRSAgent help 14:52:00 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:52:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-rdfa-minutes.html msporny 14:54:52 rrsagent, make minutes 14:54:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-rdfa-minutes.html msporny 14:55:09 rrsagent, make minutes public 14:55:09 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', msporny. Try /msg RRSAgent help 14:55:26 rrsagent, make public 14:55:26 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make public', msporny. Try /msg RRSAgent help 14:55:28 grr 14:56:14 rrsagent, make logs public 14:56:23 Ralph has joined #rdfa 14:56:47 SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started 14:56:54 +Ralph 14:58:27 +??P11 14:58:30 -Ralph 14:58:31 +Ralph 14:58:33 zakim, I am ??P11 14:58:33 +msporny; got it 15:00:47 Present: Ralph Swick, Manu Sporny 15:02:15 is ben not going to attend today? 15:03:20 benadida has joined #rdfa 15:03:21 I am trying to wrap xhtml 2 call 15:03:53 +Ben_Adida 15:04:30 Regrets +Mark_Birbeck 15:04:46 Regrets+ Mark_Birbeck 15:05:00 +ShaneM 15:05:06 Present+ Shane McCarron 15:05:13 Present+ Ben Adida 15:14:55 Topic: TimBL's comments 15:15:23 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/CR-rdfa-syntax-20080620/#docconf 15:15:36 Ralph: There are two remaining technical points that need to be clarified. 15:15:49 Ralph: The document type and extra triples that are generated. 15:16:12 Ralph: regarding document conformance, the concern is around SHOULDs for the DOCTYPE and @profile. 15:16:56 Ralph: My proposal after the conversation with Tim is to put the reference to DOCTYPE and @profile into a non-normative appendix 15:17:26 Ralph: The reasoning is that these are both for the convenience of implementations that need these facilities. They are not required for the document to assert it has triples. 15:17:49 Ralph: Neither DOCTYPE nor @profile are essential for asserting triples. 15:17:54 Ben: What about @version 15:18:04 Ralph: Tim has not expressed worry about @version. 15:18:15 Ben: We should make this consistent, so we should include @version. 15:18:23 Ralph: Good point, we should include it in the appendix. 15:19:18 Shane: I though this was about SHOULD/MUST for detection of triples. 15:20:10 Ralph: Not really, each of the three was meant to assert whether or not the document asserts the triples. 15:21:36 Ben: we all agree that triples are kicked off via the namespace document 15:21:48 Shane: The constraints from XHTML modularization have nothing to do with triple generation. 15:21:58 Shane: They have to do with the announcement of the type of document that is being delivered. 15:22:25 Shane: We always provide a way for document authors to specify the type of document they're delivering. 15:22:56 Ralph: The GRDDL spec is clear that either @profile or namespace document is sufficient. We're doing the namespace document, so we're covered there. 15:23:46 Ben: I thought we were always clear about changing the definition of XHTML with modularization. 15:24:15 Ben: So we're moving to an appendix or changing to MAY. 15:24:22 Ben: Isn't that change substantive. 15:25:15 Ralph: There's another way to look at it... we need to consult with XHTML 2 WG. 15:25:29 Ralph: The spec currently says SHOULD, and what we're being told is that SHOULD is confusing. 15:26:08 Ralph: SHOULD means that implementations should complain if documents don't have this, but we're not attempting to be that strong. 15:26:53 Ralph: It's not clear what the triple protocol is with these three SHOULDs. 15:27:05 Ralph: It's a different kind of IETF SHOULD... 15:27:55 Shane: It is possible that XHTML2 WG is using the term SHOULD in a way that other groups use it... and if that's the case we should change it. 15:28:12 Shane: We don't think that SHOULD means "agents should complain". If that's the case, we should be saying "MAY". 15:28:49 Shane: Usually MAY is an optional behavior, and is a warning to implementers to not depend on the behavior. 15:29:22 Shane: We now have @version - it would be nice to say MUST include @version. 15:31:50 Shane: We are attempting to do 2 things with this. 15:32:08 Shane: Define a document type and define a method to detect that triples could be extracted from the document. 15:32:27 Ralph: The definition of the markup language is done through the namespace URL. 15:37:49 Manu: So we have DOCTYPE and then we have @version and we have @profile. 15:38:07 Manu: In the future, it seems like people want to get rid of DOCTYPE. So isn't @version going to be necessary in the future? 15:38:22 Shane: AFAIK, yes. 15:39:19 Ralph: If somebody creates a schema that produces different triples, we would be uncomfortable with that. You must state the @version if you want to be clear. 15:39:52 Ben: Is there going to be a way to follow your nose using a combination of the default namespace and @version. 15:40:20 Ralph: If the namespace document identified triples that mapped to the @version, then you could follow your nose. 15:41:11 Shane: We need to figure out the mapping, that's all. 15:41:40 Shane: So we could support follow your nose with this approach. 15:41:55 Ben: So DOCTYPE and @profile are not necessary, but @version could be. 15:42:38 Ralph: If we say that @version is a MUST, then we might be suggesting that the XHTML1 triples were always there. 15:43:07 Ben: No @version should be a SHOULD, and the XHTML1 triples have always been there. 15:43:34 Shane: There is a difference between stating the document type and stating that there are triples in the document. 15:43:55 Ben: Let's take the existing document into consideration. 15:44:42 Ben: We now have a consistent internal story, what do we need to do to the current document. 15:45:06 Ben: If the namespace document contains a GRDDL @profile, the document does not. 15:45:32 Shane: GRDDL states that you should use @profile in XHTML documents. 15:45:48 Ben: No, don't think that's the case. 15:46:14 Ben: GRDDL makes most sense at the namespace level, not the instance level. 15:47:10 Shane: TimBL wants the @profile to be in a non-normative appendix. 15:47:15 Ralph: He wants us to be clear. 15:47:34 Shane: We've agreed to change the namespace document. 15:48:01 Shane: Let's remove @profile. 15:48:13 Ralph: Don't think that would be a good move. 15:49:01 Ralph: We had that in there mostly for broken GRDDL implementations. 15:49:38 Ralph: So the solution to the deployment issue is to add an non-normative appendix. 15:50:12 Ralph: About the procedural concern about this being substantiative, we can mark it as a feature at risk. 15:50:22 Ralph: Informative appendix H is at risk - we could say. 15:51:03 Ben: This is editorial because if you build an implementation of RDFa, it will still work after this change is in there. 15:51:42 Ralph: We have 3 items that are SHOULD and none of them are necessary to find triples. 15:53:34 Shane: We have an appendix now that defines the DTD and is normative. 15:53:52 Shane: That appendix defines the system identifer for DTDs. 15:54:24 Shane: The SHOULD about the DTD should be removed to an appendix. We already say that you SHOULD use DOCTYPE. 15:55:02 Ralph: The appendix says here is the normative system identifier if you want to use it. 15:55:33 Ralph: We could leave it implicit that the way you use it is to put DOCTYPE in there. 15:55:39 Ralph: No need to write anything more informative. 15:55:48 Ben: Why not do it for clarity's sake. 15:56:07 Shane: We need this appendix. 15:56:12 Shane: for validation. 15:56:35 PROPOSE: move the two items "SHOULD be a DOCTYPE" and "SHOULD be a @profile" from Section 4.1 to a new Informational Appendix "Deployment Advice" 15:56:36 Ben: So it sounds like we have an appendix that has current deployment advice. Use DOCTYPE and @profile if you want. 15:57:34 +1 15:57:43 +1 15:58:17 Shane: We should insert the appendix before the references. 15:58:20 Ralph: Sure 15:58:21 Ben: Sure. 15:59:23 RESOLVED: move the two items "SHOULD be a DOCTYPE" and "SHOULD be a @profile" from Section 4.1 to a new Informational Appendix "Deployment Advice" 15:59:42 Ben: I'll chat with Mark and Steven about this to make sure they're okay with this. 16:00:05 Ralph: We'll probably need some documentation from XHTML2. 16:00:11 Ben: We agree that this is an editorial change. 16:00:30 Ben: We don't need a formal vote on this. 16:00:55 Topic: Default Graph Language per TimBL's comment. 16:01:10 Ben: I thought TimBL was comfortable with this in his response. 16:01:12 http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/CR-rdfa-syntax-20080620/#processorconf 16:01:41 Ralph: The [default graph] language is fuzzy to TimBL. 16:03:09 Ben: It seems he's questioning what [default graph] means. 16:03:29 Ralph: There is no W3C recommendation that sufficiently defines [default graph] 16:03:39 Ralph: What we mean in this case is that the document has asserted these triples. 16:04:04 Ralph: Any other triples that the processor might choose to find, in this version of the spec, the document has not asserted. 16:04:21 Ralph: No W3C spec has described this. 16:04:28 Ben: Can we add 3 lines to define it. 16:04:36 Ralph: We should use different language 16:05:03 Ben: We went through this several times, so changing the language might not work well for everybody. 16:05:33 Ben: We've stuck with [default graph] for a number of reasons. 16:05:45 Ralph: I know we've talked about this several times. 16:05:49 Ben: Can't we just define this. 16:06:17 Shane: We do, it says it right at the top of this section: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/CR-rdfa-syntax-20080620/#processorconf 16:06:43 Ralph: We don't say that the [default graph] holds the triples that are asserted by this document. 16:07:03 Shane: A conforming RDFa Processor MUST make available to a consuming application a single [RDF graph] containing all possible triples generated by using the rules in the Processing Model section. This is called the [default graph]. 16:07:16 PROPOSE: add "The [default graph] is the graph of triples that are asserted by the document according to this specification." 16:08:00 Ralph: We are saying that the document asserts a certain set of triples, we are not saying that they do not assert any other triples. 16:08:08 Ben: I'd be happy with what you've proposed. 16:08:15 +1 16:09:24 Shane: "For the avoidance of doubt, tThe [default graph] is the graph of triples that are asserted by the document according to this specification." 16:10:16 PROPOSE: add "The RDF semantics of the document include the triples that are in the [default graph]." 16:10:30 ShaneM has left #rdfa 16:10:39 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 16:14:12 PROPOSE: add "This specification uses the term [default graph] to mean the graph of triples that are asserted by the document." 16:14:13 For the avoidance of doubt, the default graph contains all of the triples 16:14:13 asserted by a document according to the processing model. 16:15:28 Ben: When we say [default graph] we don't mean all triples asserted by all languages. We mean ONLY the triples generated by the RDFa specification. 16:15:48 Ralph: We are saying that document authors that use the processing model that we have described here are asserting triples. 16:15:58 Ben: You're trying to say something stronger? 16:16:24 Ben: We shouldn't allow this specification to allow OTHER triples defined in other documents to be placed into the [default graph] 16:17:06 he [default graph] is the graph of triples that, according to this specification, are asserted by the document. 16:18:11 PROPOSE: This specification uses the term default graph to mean all of the triples asserted by a document according to the Processing Model section. 16:20:15 PROPOSE: 16:20:15

A conforming RDFa Processor MUST make available to a consuming application 16:20:15 a single RDF graph containing all possible triples generated by 16:20:15 using the rules in the Processing Model section. This is called 16:20:15 the default graph, and only contains the triples asserted by a document that are within this single RDF graph.

16:21:51 PROPOSE: 16:21:51

A conforming RDFa Processor MUST make available to a consuming application 16:21:51 a single RDF graph containing all possible triples generated by 16:21:51 using the rules in the Processing Model section. 16:21:51 This specification uses the term 16:21:52 default graph to mean all of the triples asserted by a document according to the Processing Model section.

16:22:16 Replace sentence "This is called the [default graph]" with "This specification uses the term default graph to mean all of the triples asserted by a document according to the Processing Model section." 16:22:34 +1 16:22:38 +1 16:22:43 RESOLVED: Replace sentence "This is called the [default graph]" with "This specification uses the term default graph to mean all of the triples asserted by a document according to the Processing Model section." 16:23:31 +1 16:24:21 +1 16:24:32 W.r.t. the new appendix C.... 16:24:33 16:24:33

This section is informative.

16:24:33

Documents written using the markup language defined in 16:24:33 this specification can be validated using the 16:24:33 DTD defined in Appendix A. If a document author wants 16:24:35 to faciliate such validation, they may include the following 16:24:37 declaration at the top of their document:

16:24:39 16:24:41

Authors who want to be certain their documents are 16:24:43 transformable by GRDDL processors could 16:24:45 use the profile attribute as permitted by 16:24:47 the GRDDL Recommendation in the following way:

16:27:23 -ShaneM 16:27:45 -Ralph 16:27:46 -Ben_Adida 16:27:46 -msporny 16:27:48 SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended 16:27:49 Attendees were Ralph, msporny, Ben_Adida, ShaneM 16:28:49 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:28:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-rdfa-minutes.html msporny 16:41:48 okay - updated editos draft is up at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080619/ 17:26:21 Zakim has left #rdfa 19:19:54 rrsagent, bye 19:19:54 I see no action items