See also: IRC log
SAZ: abstract of previous revision was improved
SAZ: introduction was also updated
... Starting with abstract
... abstract refers to capacity to describe "any type of content" - is this too broad?
CV: Base64Content probably does cover any type of content
SAZ: abstract accepted by group since no comments
CI: drop "describe"; doesn't describe, but providees series of classes that serve as containers for content
SAZ: change suggested by CI done; moving on to intro
CV: other forms of the 'describe' (e.g. description, describing) may also need to be changed to e.g. representation, representing
use cases look much better
SAZ: question from Danny - relation to infobits
... possibly discuss how this work overlaps with other work
... does not need to hold up publication
CV: don't understand connection to other technologies mentioned (e.g. RSS)
SAZ: RSS does have a content body
SAZ: question as to reuse as well, not just
... moving on to appendicies
CV: not happy with title of section 3, "When to create which resources"
+1 for "User senarios"
SAZ: change title to, "User senarios"
... consider renaming section 4, "Open Issues and Extensions," to, "Extending the Vocabulary"
<shadi> ACTION: CV & JK research possible overlap and/or differences to other work such as RSS/ATOM (see comments by Danny Ayers) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-er-irc]
<shadi> Mapping to DOM Properties
yes, reading the table looks like more appropraite title might be "Mapping between DOM and Content In RDF Properties"
SAZ: really want to reduce the length of the title
could just call it "Properties Mapping" and have an introductory sentence explaining what is being mapped and why
SAZ: favored proposal seems to be changing "Vocabulary" to "Properties"
SAZ: any objections to publishing Content in
RDF along with HTTP in RDF?
... pubilcation is greed to by group
... correction - publication on hold until overlap is resolved
... overlap concerning where Namespace class belongs - Content in RDF or Pointers in RDF
SAZ: comments from MikeS
... and JK
i'm satisfied with CI's response
CV: need Namespace class with at least prefix
and uri but is required for pointers and for representing content
... namespaces are more like content so belong in Content in RDF document
JK: no use of namespace class in Content in RDF
... prefixes are local to where they are used in an XML doc
... no general mapping that belongs to entire document
SAZ: can specify a base or default namespace by not using one
JK: yes, but can declare new prefixes throughout the doc
<JohannesK> <a:a1 xmlns:a="ns1">
<JohannesK> <a:b1 xmlns:a="ns2"/>
JK: namesapce is entirely local
JK: another issue - example for XPointerPointer looks very much like exmple for XPathPointer
CV: note use of position() function from XPointer, not available in XPath
<JohannesK> position() is defined in http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116#section-Node-Set-Functions
JK: not what do we do with XPointerPointer, but is there a difference between XPathPointer and XPointerPointer
<CarlosV> s /CV: note/CI: note/
JK: is there an example that makes use of XPointer that is distinct from XPath
SAZ: waht's the difference between XPath and XPointer? SHould classes be merged or is one an extension of the other?
JK: think XPointer uses XPath making xpath a subset of Xpointer
<carlosI> from the Xpointer Scheme: "This specification explicitly extends some aspects of the syntax and semantics of XPath (mainly in relation to support for locations other than whole nodes). Except in such cases, [XPath] constructs and definitions remain in effect in the xpointer() scheme."
CI: XPointer spec clearly states XPath is a subset, XPointer is an extension
SAZ: does it make sense to have both classes?
why not just have XPointerPointer extend (subClassOf) XPathPointer?
SAZ: very little difference between clases but semantics are a little different bc based on different specs
JK: difficult to decide unless we see examples of xpointer that don't look like xpath
I agree - needs a little research
<scribe> ACTION: CI to investigate where XPointer and XPath are significantly different [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/25-er-irc]
SAZ: publication of HTTP in RDF and Content in RDF
<shadi> RESOLUTION: publish HTTP-in-RDF and Content-in-RDF
SAZ: Pointers in RDF looks very good; 1st working draft once last issue is resolved
<JohannesK> I saw, there is TP week in Mandelieu in October. Are there plans to have a F2F?