See also: IRC log, previous 2008-08-28
ACTION: [DONE] Ben add Noah's comments to the tracker [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action21]
<Ralph> issue 126 CR Comment: conformance for markup, a processor, or both?
<Ralph> issue 127 CR Comment: [Noah Mendelsohn] Comments on RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and processing
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ben ask SWD to approve publication of an updated RDFa Primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action20]
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Manu to upload test harness source code to W3C CVS. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
Manu:I need to talk with Ralph about this
[CONTINUES] 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]
<msporny> http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2008-August/012432.html
Manu:I've started this discussion
... overall there's some push back; they'd rather I spend my time working on
methods to map microformats to RDFa rather than embedding microformats in
RDFa. They'd like a mapping mechanism defined that each microformats parser
could use but I have also been contacted off-line by some saying a unified
markup mechanism is better than a mapping mechanism
ACTION: [CONTINUES] 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: [DONE] Ralph update draft response to Noah [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action22]
<Ralph> Re: Comments on RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and processing [Ralph 2008-08-28]
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] 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 talk with Jamie McCarthy about an AskSlashdot piece [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/21-rdfa-minutes.html#action22]
<Ralph> ACTION: [PENDING] Manu talk with Michael Smethurst at BBC about RDFa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/08/21-rdfa-minutes.html#action23]
<Ralph> Manu: I have sent email to Michael, waiting to hear back
<Ralph> 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]
<Ralph> Ralph: if we want to update the Implementation Report again I think we should freeze the current one and start a new dated version
<Ralph> 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] 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: [DONE] 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]
Shane:do we need to change our test suite?
Ralph:no
Ralph:then this action is done to my satisfaction
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: [DONE] Shane to start a wiki page for HTML4/5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action21]
Shane:there are 3 of them but in particular RDFainHTML4
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: [DONE] Shane to write home page for SPREAD. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
<ShaneM> http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/rdfa
Ralph: The Task force is under both XHTML2 and
SWD
... So, most of us are members of one or the other.
... This task force exists as long as the other two WGs exist.
... Both charters refer explicitly to XHTML.
... More directly, the deployment WG charter expires in December.
... We're probably not going to extend it.
... We have 4 major things on the deliverables list, RDFa was one of them.
... They will probably want to focus on SKOS.
... That doesn't need to stop us from talking about outreach, tutorials,
wiki, etc.
... We would not find much support on SWD to extend RDFa work beyond Dec.
<Ralph> SWD WG charter
Ralph: Hmm, point #5 in deliverables
<Ralph> "5. A W3C Technical Report (Working Group Note or Recommendation) specifying how to incorporate RDF semantics into HTML documents."
Ralph: Specifying how to incorporate RDF into HTML documents.
<Steven> XHTML2 charter says the same
<Steven> "RDFa, (including CURIEs) for incorporating rich (meta)data semantics into HTML documents in a way that accommodates the use of independently-developed ontologies in combination. RDFa will be developed in cooperation with the Semantic Web Deployment WG"
<Steven> In those days HTML meant XHTML
Ralph: I think it's clear that we'd get
pushback if we said XHTML2 charter applies to HTML4/5.
... For RDFa 1.1, I wouldn't export any support from deployment WG.
... For doing RDF in non-XHTML, I think we get different pushback.
... We should be proposing a new charter for what we would want to do.
<Steven> We are chartered til end 2009
ShaneM: If we're talking about RDFa 1.1 and the XML space... I think for RDFa + XML work we could continue under the auspices of the XHTML2 WG for as long as we want
Steven: Happy to carry on with RDFa until end of XHTML2 charter - end of next year.
Ralph: Steven, Mark, Shane - do you have a
feeling on what you'd like to do.
... Any reason to continue it under XHTML2 WG?
... or would you prefer to split it off?
Steven: Haven't thought about it.
Ralph: My bias is to make it a separate
group.
... It'll be tough to get some folks to join XHTML2 WG.
... SWD has 4 separate tasks, with less interaction between each task than we
envisioned when we wrote the charter.
Steven: This is the reason XForms got created, it makes sense.
Ralph: How soon should we admit that we're starting work on RDFa 1.1?
<ShaneM> I don't mind if this activity became its own working group....
Ralph: The con is fairly big to start on the next version too soon.
<markbirbeck> +1 To that
Ralph: Creates too many opportunities for FUD.
<markbirbeck> not sure what's going into 1.1
markbirbeck: If we have an ongoing, general
charter, it might be okay.
... To tell people that there is stuff to add to RDFa feels a bit odd.
ShaneM: Agree - let it sit for a little
while.
... I think we could extend it, it works fine.
Ralph:there is stuff we have deferred; syntax for lists
ShaneM: Works fine as is.
Ralph: There are certainly features of RDF,
that we don't have features for in RDFa.
... I think our message should be that "We recognize that there are more
features to add in RDFa, but we want to see how RDFa does in the field". We
need deployment experience to set the feature priorities.
<ShaneM> I think we need to support HTML - I don't mind how we do that.
<Steven> (It will always be an extra call :-) )
Mark:we could consider offering our experience
to other groups, e.g. ATOM
... we could add to our Wiki list of broader RDFa deployments; not just
XHTML
Mark: This is time consuming for some people in this group. Perhaps we should focus on helping others get this right. It's not just the processors, it has to do with XHTML+RDFa.
<ShaneM> evangelism is important too - we need to find a way to continue our marketing efforts about RDFa.
<Steven> That sounds like an interest group
Mark: but also extending the notion of 'deployment'; maybe this does require a Group
<ShaneM> +1 for an interest group
Steven: Interest Groups are usually much
lighter-weight
... can write the charter to permit non-W3C Members to participate
... an IG is not involved with producing specifications
Manu: I want to be sure that we can speak with
some W3C authority when we talk with other communities
... the microformats community does respect other standards
... so it's important to be able to speak as a W3C standards group
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss how we spread the word that this works in HTML
Shane: regardless of what we call the activity, it would be nice to have a way to spread the word that there's a way to use this with HTML; this is a 'today' problem
<ShaneM> To see my rant look at http://halindrome.blogspot.com/
<ShaneM> While we are not obligated to continue meeting, we have charter to do so through December 2008.
Manu: Shane, Mark, and I have been looking at
this idea recently
... the idea is to be able to incorporate some microformat words
<ShaneM> total straw man proposal - nothing set in stone
Manu: we have an outline of a proposal
Mark: this hasn't just come up recently; it's
been in the air for a long time
... it's not just about microformats
... it just happens that certain tweaks would make things easier for
microformat folk
... but it's really more about extending CURIEs rather than extending RDFa
... we have to be careful not to skew this
... the way it's being proposed at the moment it sounds as though we're
inviting lots of input from microformats community
... it could sound like we're proposing to incorporate microformats and
that's not what we're saying
... the idea is to provide a mechanism for allowing people to use more
unprefixed terms
... that's sort-of what microformats does
... the current idea is to provide a mechanism for others to define
unprefixed values
... let's present it that way
... and note that if you're a microformats person, this new mechanism looks a
lot like microformats
Manu: agree, but we're also trying to win over
the HTML5 community and the microformats community so let's not lose sight of
that
... do we need @prefix or does the @xmlns work expand to do this?
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss how we present this idea
Shane: agree with Mark that there's not much
new in this proposal
... my immediate goal was just to write a page that speaks to the
microformats people
... in a presentation that would resonate with that community
<ShaneM> @prefix or @xmlns is just a way of defining a "prefix" property
Mark: I cited @@ an idea to flip CURIEs on
their head
... it occurred to me that if we were to say there is a substitution string X
that _sometimes_ has a suffix
... there would no longer be 'unprefixed' values; there would just be
mappings to URIs
... everything becomes a mapping, including @rel='next'
... @rel='next' is currently a mapping because we have explicitly said so
<Steven> rel="alternate"
<ShaneM> A CURIE is a TOKEN - all TOKENs have mappings. How those are established is... magic?
<Steven> rel="alternate:stylesheet"
Mark: if we say 'x' and 'x:y' are both CURIEs
then the mapping mechanism handles both
... we'd still need to define how to declare mappings
... connects to an older idea of Shane's to use this as a mechanism for
defining vocabularies
<markbirbeck> rel="x"
Mark: consider CURIE as a substitution mechanism for substituting a longer string for a shorter one
<markbirbeck> x:y
Mark: a secondary feature is that ':' just means concatenation
<Steven> rel="alternate" rel="alternate:stylesheet"
Mark: this would be compatible with RDFa as RDFa only uses the x:y format
<markbirbeck> typeof="hcard"
Mark: and would make @typeof='hcard' not look like a hack
<Steven> I like it
Shane: I don't disagree but this looks like a
mental model that's not inconsistent with the current model
... in terms of the way CURIE is currently defined, these are unprefixed
values
Mark: the spec currently enumerates a list of unprefixed values and says how to map them
Shane: only for RDFa+XHTML; not for any other has reserved words
Ralph: the hard thing is for strings without ':' to come from several vocabularies
<markbirbeck> "A host language MAY interpret a reference value that is not preceded by a prefix and a colon as being a member of a host-language defined set of reserved values. Such reserved values MUST translate into an IRI, just as with any other CURIE."
Shane: this _can_ be viewed as a preprocessing step
Mark: what's missing from the current CURIE
language is specification of a mechanism for getting new reserved values
... I'd put the preprocessing language in with a view that we'd later have to
resolve how to define new reserved words
<markbirbeck> xmlns:hcard="...."
Mark: my realization the other day is to think of x: as a mapping
<markbirbeck> typeof="hcard"
Mark: I think this simply works in our current
processing model with just slight changes in CURIE
... no pre-defined tokens; xmlns:hcard defines the token
Manu: so the mechanism we'd use to do this -- whether @xmlns or @prefix -- would lift out each of the current reserved tokens?
Mark: we've discussed a separate mechanism for adding to the predefined tokens
Mark: but if I do ...
<markbirbeck> typeof="hcard:"
... folk would understand this as nearly what microformats
currently does but with an ugly ':' on the end
... it works with the _current_ processing model
<markbirbeck> "x:" "y"
vs
<markbirbeck> "x" ":y"
Mark: so the mapping is defined even without a ':'
<Steven> that means we could preload foaf dc and so on
<Steven> as well
<markbirbeck> x a :b
<markbirbeck> xmlns:a="http://...type"
<markbirbeck> a:
<markbirbeck> a
<Steven> nice discussion
Mark: I suggest we discuss this in its own
terms and not tie it so closely to microformats
... looking at N3, essentially it's defining substitution tokens
... I'll write this up in mail
[adjourned]