See also: IRC log, previous 2008-08-21
<msporny> 21-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
ACTION: [PENDING] Jeremy review and consider expanding the description of TopBraid in the RDFa wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/21-rdfa-minutes.html#action24]
ACTION: [PENDING] Manu talk with Jamie McCarthy about an AskSlashdot piece [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/21-rdfa-minutes.html#action22]
ACTION: [PENDING] Manu talk with Michael Smethurst at BBC about RDFa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/21-rdfa-minutes.html#action23]
ACTION: [PENDING] Manu write a pending test case for literal property and no child nodes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/21-rdfa-minutes.html#action02]
ACTION: [PENDING] Ralph prepare to summarize new W3C test suite license on 28 Aug [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/21-rdfa-minutes.html#action03]
ACTION: [PENDING] Jeremy to demonstrate GRDDL with XHTML/RDFa once the NS URI is set up. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
ACTION: [PENDING] Manu to create test cases for testing relative URI resolution (href/CURIEs/etc). [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/31-rdfa-minutes.html#action22]
ACTION: [PENDING] Manu write the perl code for Slashdot [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-rdfa-minutes.html#action03]
ACTION: [PENDING] Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
ACTION: [PENDING] Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
ACTION: [PENDING] Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
ACTION: Manu to write summary for Semantic Web Use Cases for Ivan. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
ACTION: Manu to upload test harness source code to W3C CVS. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
ACTION: [DONE] Michael to update Test Suite Manifest to correct tests 52 and 53 descriptions. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/14-rdfa-minutes.html#action02]
ACTION: [PENDING] Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/26-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
ACTION: [PENDING] Ralph to make http://www.w3.org/2008/07/rdfa-xslt happen [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action05]
ACTION: [PENDING] Shane to start a wiki page for HTML4/5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action21]
ACTION: [PENDING] Shane to update XHTML ns document to point to new XSLT URI [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action06]
ACTION: [PENDING] Shane to write home page for SPREAD. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
Ben: let's not discuss CURIE spec but I'd like a status update
Steven: the TAG asked for an extension of the
comment period, which we've granted
... so the actual deadline is the XHTML2 WG f2f at the Technical Plenary
week
Shane: we do have some editorial changes since the CURIE Last Call which you'll find reflected in the editor's draft
Ben: anything the XHTML2 WG needs from us?
Steven: the SemWeb Deployment WG agreed to provide a comment as well
Ralph: and Jeremy has that action on behalf of SWD
Ben: RDFa Syntax has been approved to go to PR
by both SWD and XHTML2 WGs
... we're missing a response from AlanR on issue 122
... I neglected to ask the WG to explicitly vote to publish the Primer
ACTION: Ben ask SWD to approve publication of an updated RDFa Primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action20]
Ralph: what about NoahM's late comment?
-> Ralph's proposed response to Noah
<msporny> +1 for clarifying that RDFa applies to XHTML.
Ralph: I propose an editorial change to the Abstract
<Steven> +1
Ben: maybe the point about subsetting the graph
is not correct anyway
... if a parser only produces part of the graph, it may not be doing the
right thing
Manu: we shouldn't say that it's OK to ignore triples
Ben: it would only be implementing half of the parser
Shane: it's easy to separate the philosophical
issue from the actual comment we have received
... the comment suggests that we move the processor conformance
requirements elsewhere
<ShaneM> rdfa-syntax-20080905/#s_conformance
Shane: I disagree with this comment
... we have 3 subsections of our conformance requirements
... 4.1 talks about document conformance and is about markup
... 4.2 talks about user agent conformance
... 4.3 talks about processor conformance
... these are all necessary and are all fine as they are
... the philosophical discussion about whether it's ok to subset the triples
would be a 4.4 and we don't need to have that discussion today
... the sort of processor we've talked about is one that gives you all the triples
Ralph: I agree with Shane's separation of those
issues
... don't engage in the philosophical debate about subsetting now
Steven: I think Noah is thinking about
optimizations
... we don't need to say anything about this
... if an application optimizes away something and we can't tell from the
outside, it doesn't matter
... if the application produces the same results as one that did not
optimize, we don't care
... "as long as the output is the same as if the application had produced the
full graph, we don't care"
Ben: we just talk about producing the graph
Shane: technically we just talk about the processor
Ben: so the application is out of our scope
Mark: Noah may not be trying to distinguish
between the application layer and the processor layer
... however, the idea of the default graph runs through both the language and
the processor and I don't see a simple way to separate these quickly
... I don't think the comment is so much about a distinction between
application layers and processor layers
Ralph: so a combination of Shane's 3 points and the idea that the default graph is intertwined throughout makes us not wish to do a major document rearrangement at this time
<Steven> I think in Noah's mail that he meant <prefix:html xmlns:prefix="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">"
<ShaneM> New text: A strictly conforming XHTML+RDFa document is a document that requires only the facilities described as mandatory in this specification. Such a document satisfies the following criteria:
ACTION: Ben add Noah's comments to the tracker [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action21]
Ben: I've already written the transform to produce the CR Disposition of Comments
Shane: I've already integrated all of the changes proposed in Ralph's message
Ben: background on why this discussion is
taking place now rather than later
... Creative Commons has been working on the ccRel specification for a
while
... we decided to submit it to W3C to be published as a Member Submission
... it got a lot of attention when W3C published it
... and it mentions RDFa
... so that started the discussion
<mhausenblas> my 2c on the ongoing HTML5 discussion :)
Shane: why isn't this discussion on the HTML WG list?
<ShaneM> been pondering HTML4 and RDFa - some noodling here: http://www.rdfa.info/wiki/RDFainHTML4
ACTION: Ralph update draft response to Noah [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action22]
Manu: there's not a lot of understanding of RDF, RDF/XML, and RDFa and the differences within the HTML WG; we're building an understanding of the benefits of structured data in markup
Michael: I saw Guus' announcement requesting
PR transition
... should I update the implementation report now?
<Steven> If all design was done by paving cow paths, no one would ever build bridges
Ralph: sure, fine to add to the Implementation
Report
... it will be useful to the Director when the PR transition decision is made
(next week)
Manu: folk are getting tired of the problem
that a new microformats parser is needed every time a new microformat is
created
... the question now being considered within the microformats community is
whether to reuse the RDFa attributes but not put URIs in them
... what would we think about this?
Mark: I like the sentiment but I take issue
with the specifics
... in a previous discussion we'd debated whether attributes ought to have
different meanings in different contexts and decided they should not
... now we have a fixed list of values recognized in CURIEs when they appear
without a prefix
... it would not be too hard to make that list extensible by others
... e.g. "within this DIV, unprefixed names come from <somewhere
else>"
... would be a bridge between microformats and RDFa
Ben: I second that
... microformats repurpose some HTML attributes
... and the Accessiblity community raised issues with this; e.g. misuse of
@title
... as RDFa explicitly ignores other unprefixed values in CURIEs, that's an
extensibility opportunity
... but [for example] redefining @typeof would be a mistake
... if the goal is to get to a single parser vs. a parser-per-microformat
then our goal is to be sure that the markup always means the same thing
... so let's work on that together
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss CURIEs and microformats
Shane: our reserved values are interpreted as URIs at the end of the day
Manu: what microformats really cares about is
to be able to write @rel='title' without having to explain anything else
... their concern is that to have to add a ':' would be difficult to explain
to users
... the underlying implementation is less of a concern; it's about the actual
markup
Shane: we'll need to prioritize where we put our effort next and this could be it if it gets the microformat community into the fold more quickly
<markbirbeck> I believe the key to this is to make a really simple 'flip' in CURIEs (wish we'd thought of it before). Instead of @rel="license" being an 'unprefixed' value, we should see it as 'unsuffixed'.
<markbirbeck> Then all we're concerned about is providing more and more techniques for defining prefixes.
<markbirbeck> @xmlns was always seen as only one way to define a prefix.
Manu: as long as there's someone from RDFa advising the microformat community we should be in good shape
Ben: I appreciate Mark's foresight in pushing for RDFa to ignore unprefixed values
[adjourned]
Michael: regrets for next week
ACTION: Manu to work with Microformats community to address RDFa as unified markup for uFs. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action23]
Ralph: I'm available next week but not the two weeks after that