W3C

RDF in XHTML Task Force

09 Oct 2008

Agenda

See also: IRC log, previous 2008-10-02

Attendees

Present
Ralph Swick, Steven Pemberton, Mark Birbeck, Shane McCarron, Manu Sporny
Regrets
Ben Adida, Michael Hausenblas
Chair
Manu
Scribe
Ralph

Contents


Ralph: I'm adding RDFa to the XHTML namespace document (XHTML version) too
... to get the online GRDDL extractor to work

Action Review

ACTION: [DONE] Ben ask Shane to produce an updated Syntax with editorial changes for the WG to review next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-rdfa-minutes.html#action17]

ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ben to close loop with Danny. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-rdfa-minutes.html#action19]

ACTION: [CONTINUES] Jeremy to demonstrate GRDDL with XHTML/RDFa once the NS URI is set up. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action03]

Ralph: I've been asked to demonstrate that our GRDDL namespace markup works via http://www.w3.org/2007/08/grddl

ACTION: [CONTINUES] Manu talk with Jamie McCarthy about an AskSlashdot piece [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action04]

ACTION: [CONTINUES] Manu to write summary for Semantic Web Use Cases for Ivan. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]

ACTION: [CONTINUES] Manu write the perl code for Slashdot. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]

ACTION: [CONTINUES] Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]

ACTION: [CONTINUES] Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]

ACTION: [CONTINUES] Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]

ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]

RDFa attributes in SVG Tiny

<Steven> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/metadata.html#MetadataAttributes

-> "Late notice: RDFa in SVG 1.2 'tiny'" [Steven 2008-10-09]

Manu: should we suggest they adopt RDFa more closely?

Mark: they insist on a:b format which is incorrect
... it would be a shame to insist on this

Manu: so ask that they not misuse @property and @typeof

Shane: I'm planning to send the same comment w.r.t. @role

Manu: so ask the SVG folk to follow the pattern of RDFa usage set by XHTML
... if you choose to use these [RDFa] attributes

Shane: yes, there are modules and those modules should be used -- and the modules have behavioral characteristics

Manu: I'll try to write up a draft comment today

ACTION: Manu to create SVG Tiny draft comment and send to RDFa list for feedback before sending to SVG Tiny workgroup. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]

-> Dan Brickley's comment on requiring a:b for RDFa in SVG tiny

Thoughts on Latest Primer

-> "Primer, and regrets for tomorrow [Ben 2008-10-08]

<msporny> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/

Manu: Section 4.1 added

Shane: typo in 4.1; s/2. Distributing and/2. Distributing an/

Manu: 4.1 looks good to me

Ralph: me too

Shane: looks fine

Steven: yep

<markbirbeck> s/RDF extensibility is the same that enables/RDF extensibility is the same as that which enables/

<markbirbeck> s/Once an RDF vocabulary created/Once an RDF vocabulary is created/

Mark: typo in 4.1, 2nd sentence; "RDF extensibility is the same that enables RDFa extensibility"

Ralph: just insert "mechanism" after "same"

Mark: 3rd sentence; "Once an RDF vocabulary /+is+/ created, ..."
... not sure this is territory we should get into

Ralph: I do think this minimal information is needed

Mark: people who don't know this won't be able to do it from this text; they'll need a pointer to more

Ralph: exactly, the pointer is there in paragraph 2

Shane: I'm with Ralph

Mark: we could say a full description is out of scope

Shane: point to our vocab document? It's also written in RDFa

Ralph: I favor a minimalist approach in this document

Mark: the point we're stressing is in the first paragraph
... not a show stopper; this text is OK
... though I suggest adding "Though it is beyond the scope of this document,
... before "At a high level"

<markbirbeck> Maybe: "Although it's beyond the scope of this primer to explain the process in detail, here is a high-level description of the process to help authors to find more information."

Axel Polleres' comments

Manu:Axel's comments point to a small bit of confusion on how to resolve CURIEs

Ralph: most of this is editorial but the first part points to a typo

Shane: yep

-> Ben's reply

Shane: I believe everything in Axel's message is taken care of
... in 5.5 step 9 there was a suggested addition on which I wanted Mark's review

Mark: I'll try to look at this thread this evening

Shane: if Mark agrees on this change (see "Mark's agreement and explicit wording" in Shane's message) I'll make it, otherwise not
... some of DERI's comments were good catches

Publishing Issues

Shane: We should be listing the task force participants, semweb participants
... and XHTML2 WG

Ralph: those lists are available, do you need me to send them to you?

Shane: yes.

ACTION: Ralph send Shane the lists of participants [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]

Manu: anything else we need?

Manu: looking at the updated XHTML vocab document, I discovered that my code was generating some wrong URIs

<msporny> [base] == http://example.org/foo.html#bar

Manu: because the base URI was different from what I expected
... when you pass in this base the fragment is included in the base

<msporny> about="#baz"

<msporny> http://example.org/foo.html#bar#baz

^ an incorrect URI

Manu: this isn't an issue with RDFa; it's an issue with parser code if the parser implementor forgets to strip off fragments

<ShaneM> current draft: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20081004/#s_curieprocessing

Manu: but we don't explicitly mention the need to strip fragments from base

Shane: in section 5.2 we define "the base"
... "usually the URL of the document being processed"

Mark: elsewhere I thought we'd said something about this because when you work out the code for @about="" you have to remove the fragment
... don't we talk about this in the text about HEAD and BODY

Steven: but this is part of URI spec

Shane: however, we don't explicitly say it

Steven: the definition of an empty string string for relative URIs is that the fragment gets dropped

Shane: it's more than this; it's "what does base mean"; we concatenate to base

Mark: no, we resolve relative to base -- not concatenate

Shane: 5.4 describes what happens when CURIEs are resolved

Mark: "... any relative URIs will need to be resolved relative to the base URI..."

<markbirbeck> Also, 5.4.2:

<markbirbeck> Note that it is generally considered a good idea not to use relative paths in namespace declarations, but since it is possible that an author may ignore this guidance, it is further possible that the URI obtained from a CURIE is relative. However, since all URIs must be resolved relative to [base] before being used to create triples, the use of relative paths should not have any effect on processing.

Ralph: I don't think we need to say anything more than what is currently in 5.4

Shane: the only additional thing we might do is cite the production for relative URI

Mark: however, base can be a relative URI and this would emphasize that the resolution algorithm must be applied

<msporny> URL RFC: Section 5.1: If the

<msporny> base URI is obtained from a URI reference, then that reference must

<msporny> be converted to absolute form and stripped of any fragment component

<msporny> prior to its use as a base URI.

Mark: the algorithm is _always_ 'resolve this path relative to this other path'
... we don't have to say base is absolute; we just have to say that everything is resolved according to this algorithm
... the markup need not contain an absolute URI in @base but by the time one gets to applying the RFC algorithm, the base URI will become absolute

Manu: I'm worried that we don't have a test case
... we should add a test that has @base with a fragment
... and a relative @about

<msporny> base="http://example.org/test.html#foo"

<msporny> about="#baz"

Mark: this is the same scenario as navigating to a document with a fragment in the URI
... the base URI of the document is the URI without the fragment

<msporny> The URL that should be generated should be: "http://example.org/test.html#baz"

Shane: what spec says that the base in that scenario doesn't have a fragment?

Ralph: I don't see that it matters whether the fragment happened to have been stored with the base or not; it's clear that after applying the resolution algorithm any fragment given with the base drops out

Shane: so @about="" should resolve to a URI without a fragment?

Ralph, Mark: yes

Shane: ah, so we need a test case for that
... actually, it's the absence of @about we should test, because @about="" does get run through the resolver

ACTION: Manu to create two TCs to test fragment identifiers dropped during URI resolution against [base] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]

Dean Edridge's comments

-> "Re: Treatment of RDFa in TAG Finding on Self-describing Web and feed back on RDFa in XHTML1.1" [Dean Edridge 2008-10-03]

Shane: DOCTYPE was moved to Appendix C _informative_

<ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20081004/#docconf

Ralph: we have considered this issue before and there is no new evidence presented

Shane: the additional evidence is HTML5
... we could point out that Appendix C says that _if_ the author _does_ want to DTD validate, here's how to do it

Steven: it seems that they want any document without a DOCTYPE to be interpreted as HTML5
... a formal reply should come from Ben, as Chair, saying we've discussed this already and we're not seeing any new information

Shane: we already sent him that answer and he wasn't happy so it needs to come from the Chair, and point also to Appendix C

Steven: and in 4.1 Document Conformance, we have "There SHOULD be a @version attribute ..."

[adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Manu to create SVG Tiny draft comment and send to RDFa list for feedback before sending to SVG Tiny workgroup. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
[NEW] ACTION: Manu to create two TCs to test fragment identifiers dropped during URI resolution against [base] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
[NEW] ACTION: Ralph send Shane the lists of participants [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/09-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
 
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben to close loop with Danny. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-rdfa-minutes.html#action19]
[PENDING] ACTION: Jeremy to demonstrate GRDDL with XHTML/RDFa once the NS URI is set up. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action03]
[PENDING] ACTION: Manu talk with Jamie McCarthy about an AskSlashdot piece [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action04]
[PENDING] ACTION: Manu to write summary for Semantic Web Use Cases for Ivan. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
[PENDING] ACTION: Manu write the perl code for Slashdot. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
[PENDING] ACTION: Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
[PENDING] ACTION: Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
[PENDING] ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]
 
[DONE] ACTION: Ben ask Shane to produce an updated Syntax with editorial changes for the WG to review next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/02-rdfa-minutes.html#action17]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/10/09 16:20:37 $