See also: IRC log, previous 2008-11-20
Manu: what happens after end of December? Keep meeting?
Ralph: SWD WG expects to resolve to ask for
SKOS CR transition by 16 December and then I will ask for a 4-month extension
to SWD WG charter
... this would allow us to formally continue to talk about RDFa futures
... on a personal level, I think it would be a mistake to change RDFa until
there is clear support for a proposed change within the HTML WG
Manu: it would be nice to be able to say "here
is what we think should be done"
... especially for the microformats community
... we'd be in a stronger position w.r.t. conversations with microformats if
we said we think @prefix and external profiles are a good direction
Ben: what's the goal of such a statement? would you hope that people start to use RDFa with @prefix?
Manu: yes, I think the community is stuck
... this has to do with vocabulary development
... the community is currently spending a lot of time on issues that RDFa
already solves
Ben: I think it works better to have a proposal with community support to present to W3C rather than to expect W3C to pull the community
Shane: we do talk about HTML5 a lot but it doesn't exist yet -- it's only a Working Group
Ben: there are features of HTML5 that browsers do currently deploy
Shane: none of these deployed features have anything to do with microformats
Ben: call it whatever; we know there is desire
to deploy RDFa in HTML without @xmlns
... in the end, we'll have the same proposal for HTML
... so the thing we ought to do is show how to deploy RDFa in HTML4 now, get
it to validate, etc.
Manu: yep
<ShaneM> topics - validation in non-xml documents, definition of non-prefixed items, changing of default prefix on the fly
<ShaneM> @prefix SOLVES the problem of validating in non-xml documents. it is INDEPENDENT of the other two topics IMHO
<ShaneM> the ability to extend the collection of non-prefixed terms is interesting, but NOT REQUIRED.
<ShaneM> changing the default prefix on the fly is a CHANGE to RDFa overall, independent of whether a document is XML or not, and whether it uses @prefix or not
<ShaneM> hmm - that might not be true. I think you MUST use @prefix if you want to change the default CURIE prefix.
-> Tuesday SWD WG telecon discussion of charter extension
ACTION: [PENDING] Mark to send Ben ubiquity related wizard stuff [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
ACTION: [DONE] Shane to update the errata document to reflect that step 6 has extra text about a new subject - also respond to Johan who sent private mail, copying the task force. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]
ACTION: [PENDING] Ben to add public-rdfa examples to wiki and think of slightly improved top-level organization [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
Ben: I've done part of this, still need to update wiki
ACTION: [PENDING] Ben to put up information on "how to write RDFa" with screencast possibly and instructions on bookmarklet. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
Ben: I've made a bit of progress on this
... reactions to the new wiki layout?
Manu: new layout is better than the old
ACTION: [PENDING] 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]
ACTION: [PENDING] Manu talk with Jamie McCarthy about an AskSlashdot piece [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action04]
Manu: I've been hoping to implement it first :)
ACTION: [PENDING] Manu to write summary for Semantic Web Use Cases for Ivan. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
<msporny> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/bitmunk-case-study/
Manu: I wrote a draft but Ivan wants a
rewrite
... draft explains what our company is doing
... Ivan would like this draft posted as a longer story and a shorter version
for the use case wiki
ACTION: [PENDING] Manu write the perl code for Slashdot. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
Manu: basically modifying their templates but
it's a bit more involved
... adding SIOC
Ben: how about roping Steve Williams from digg
into this?
... perhaps just tell him what you're thinking
... digg is also thinking about SIOC
... so showing them your vocabulary ideas could be a useful trigger
ACTION: [PENDING] Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
ACTION: [PENDING] Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
ACTION: [PENDING] Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
ACTION: [PENDING] Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]
Ben: Mark has a draft blog post on @prefix
Shane: there are several topics and they're
independent
... we could come up with credible solutions on pieces
... 1. defining prefix mappings in non-XML grammars
... we've proposed @prefix and a syntax; everyone seems to be onboard, with
some semantic extensions
Ralph: do the inheritance rules for @prefix exactly match those for @xmlns?
Shane: I was looking at default namespaces as
they relate to CURIEs
... that's a separate topic
Ben: there seemed to be some different between
HEAD and BODY rules
... did I read too much into the discussion?
... given that HTML allows metadata in HEAD ...
Shane: at that time we were talking about using <link @rel='prefix' ...> and that's a separable issue
Ben: so current @prefix thinking is that inheritance works exactly like @xmlns?
Shane: yes
Ben: I think we could agree on a syntax like @prefix='a=URI1 b=URI2 ...'
Manu: there was a notion that @prefix might
hold more than just what is in this document
... there was also a question of what happens in @prefix='URI'
... i.e. default prefixes, or a vocabulary that could be pulled-in to define
other prefixes
Ben: pulling in another vocabulary wouldn't conflict with this syntax
<ShaneM> http://rdfa.info/wiki/RDFainHTML4#Prefix_Mappings
Shane: the wiki page supports these sorts of
extensions
... could debate whether it makes sense to redefine the default prefix
Ben: I agree the three items under 'Future
Handling' can be considered separately
... Mark was thinking about something that would pull in a local vocabulary
for one section of a document
Shane: want to separate the topics; validating v. changing the extensibility model of RDFa
Ben: I believe there is consensus on the first
bullet; @prefix='prefix=URI'
... I don't see consensus on the second bullet @prefix='=URI'
Manu: microformats added bullets 2 and 3
because we didn't feel @profile was the place to extend RDFa functionality
... this is more in the 3rd bullet; extensibility via @prefix or via
@profile
... the issue of setting the default namespace is in both worlds
Ben: if we want to make it easy to markup
common formats, such as a page on a social network, will we want to be able
to pull terms from multiple vocabularies?
... if so, the way to simplify this is not by defining lots of prefixes but
to include pre-packages bundles of terms
Manu: so maybe the 2nd bullet is unnecessary
Ben: yes, 2nd could be subsumed in 3rd
... but 2nd is also a trivial generalization of 1st bullet
... however, this also makes @prefix do more than @xmlns [which we might not
want]
... I like simplifying the social network bundle of terms case
Manu: I can't think of a strong use case for bullet 2 given that we implement 1 and 3
Ben: right, could have a bundle that only uses 1 vocabulary, so little marginal value to bullet 2
Manu: bullet 2 came before we'd thought out bullet 3 completely
Shane: I don't agree with Mark's approach; I
think it's overly simplistic
... it doesn't takes advantage of the essential RDF-ness of the
environment
... and it doesn't really address the microformat case in a way that makes it
easy to extend XMDT
<ShaneM> http://rdfa.info/wiki/RDFa_Vocabularies#Discovering_new_unprefixed_CURIEs
Shane: Manu wrote a separate proposal ^^
... making it easy to markup microformat definitions in a way that defines
vocabulary terms
... whatever we do here should be grounded in RDF
Ralph: yay Shane!
Shane: unless he's changed his approach, Mark
was defining a way to map prefixes to URIs
... this is using xmlns to define macros, rather than using RDF to define
vocabularies
... vocabulary terms need to be grounded in URIs to allow a follow-your-nose
processing engine to follow the URIs
Ben: the intermediate document could be RDF
Shane: but Mark hasn't proposed this
Manu: Mark was just showing a technically nifty
way to use @prefix to expand terms without having to consult an external
document
... but we recognize it would also be helpful to be able to provide an
external RDF document that defines prefixes
... I think Mark was opposed to having to load these external documents
Shane: I understand why it might be
unattractive to _have_ to load an external document to understand unprefixed
CURIEs
... RDF interpretation requires dereferencing prefix mappings, which I
maintain has to be done anyway
Ben: Mark was talking about bundles of vocabularies which seems to me to require external documents
Shane: Mark had a syntax for doing this inline
in the document, but I don't know why you'd want to bundle this into every
document
... Mark did write that this _can_ be embedded locally if there was a
consistent syntax
Ben: I see little value in such embedding
Shane: our debate should be about how to derive the meaning, not about the syntax
Ben: so I think we have consensus about
@prefix='p1=u1 p2=u2 ...'
... and that @prefix='=u1' seems not to have value
... and @prefix='u1' may have value and should be further investigated
[adjourned]