See also: IRC log, previous 2008-12-18
<ShaneM> we do not use that namespac
<ShaneM> it is pointed to from the xhtml namespace document
Ralph: It is up there, somewhere - the XHTML
namespace document points to it.
... Where is http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa/ used?
ShaneM: It shouldn't be circulating, nothing should point to it.
<ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/
<benadida> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/Overview.xhtml
<benadida> (2 days younger)
<benadida> http://www.w3.org/2008/07/rdfa-xslt
ShaneM: Ralph/Steven or I will fix this.
... The contents of both those documents should be exactly the same.
<ShaneM> ACTION: fix the .htaccess for the XHTML namespace [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
<benadida> action items --> http://www.w3.org/2008/12/18-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
ACTION: Mark to review reasoning on setting explicit about="" on HEAD and BODY [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/18-rdfa-irc] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: 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] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: 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] [CONTINUES]
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] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Manu talk with Jamie McCarthy about an AskSlashdot piece [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUES]
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] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Manu write the perl code for Slashdot. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Mark to send Ben ubiquity related wizard stuff [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES]
<mhausenblas> http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Microformats_in_RDF
Manu:2 parts
... part 2 is "If I've already setup my page to use hCard, how do I switch to
RDFa?"
Michael: split it into two parts (how and differences)
Manu: Perhaps we need something that shows general differences between uF and RDFa, and then gives specific examples.
ACTION: Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15] [CONTINUES]
<msporny> public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jan/0016.html Test Case #121: "[prefix:]" CURIE format is valid
Manu: the issue tested here is with suffix-less
CURIEs, e.g. "example:"
... CURIE still expands, empty-string as suffix.
<Ralph> +1
<mhausenblas> +1
<ShaneM> +1
RESOLUTION: test case 121 suffix-less CURIE approved
<msporny> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jan/0017.html Test Case #122: "[:]" CURIE format is valid
<mhausenblas> +1
<Ralph> +1
<benadida> +1
<ShaneM> +1
<markbirbeck> +1
<msporny> +1
RESOLUTION: test case 122 prefix and suffix-less CURIE [:] approved
<msporny> public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jan/0018.html Test Case #123: "[]" is a valid safe CURIE
<mhausenblas> public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jan/0026.html
<msporny> about="[foo]"
Manu: the current consensus is that the subject is http://example.org/
<msporny> about="[]"
Manu: "[foo]" is an invalid CURIE, therefore so
should be the empty string
... as neither is in the reserved (XHTML) list
<msporny> # the mapping to use when there is no prefix is not defined, which effectively prohibits the use of CURIEs that do not contain a colon;
Ben: did we define CURIES to require a prefix in RDFa?
Mark: yes
... wasn't my preference, but it was a long discussion
Ben: considering consistency w.r.t. reserved
words
... this is the first instance where an invalid value actually changes the
structure
Mark: and Ivan pointed out the same thing occurs with @about="[foo]"
Shane: right; @about="[foo]" should not change the subject
Ben: but the presence of @rel alters the graph
structure even if the CURIE is not valid
... however in this case it's acting as if @about was not present
... however, since @about just changes the subject and doesn't by itself
generates triples, maybe this is OK
Mark: it's clear that this is the current spec. We could discuss whether this is the most desireable choice.
Ben: so if it's not a valid CURIE value, the behavior is as if @about were not there
Mark: the alternative discussed was to assume
the invalid CURIE was in the local document namespace
... and we liked that less
Ben: the discussion is about the subject; some triple has to be generated, and the spec is clear
Mark: however, as you note @rel="[foo]" does do some work
Ben: rephrasing, what is the alternative when
an invalid CURIE is found?
... it would seem wrong to drop the triple entirely
... whereas it's more reasonable to drop the triple in @rel="[foo]"
... so I don't see a better alternative for @about="[foo]" without major
changes to CURIE
... I'm satisfied with this conclusion
Mark: the test case seems to be unnecessarily nested
Manu: yeah, probably; it went through several iterations
Mark: the middle DIV could probably be
dropped
... you only need the first one
Manu: yeah, it appears the <div about="http://example.org/"> could be dropped
... the correct SPARQL should be ...
Shane: do you agree, Mark, that the same rules apply to @resource, @href, @src?
Ben: only @resource uses SafeCURIE
<msporny> Here's the updated case:
Shane: assuming that it is possible to create an illegal URI then the general rule would hold that an illegal URI is ignored
Mark: yeah
Shane: @href and @src?
<msporny> ---------------------Test Case 123 XHTML--------------------------
<msporny> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<msporny> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML+RDFa 1.0//EN"
<msporny> "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-rdfa-1.dtd">
<msporny> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
<msporny> xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<msporny> <head>
<msporny> <title>Test Case 0123</title>
<msporny> </head>
<msporny> <body>
<msporny> <p about="http://example.org/">
<msporny> <span about="[]" property="dc:title">Test Case 0123</span>
<msporny> checks to make sure RDFa processors resolve the empty
<msporny> CURIE correctly.
<msporny> <div resource="[]">
<msporny> <span property="dc:contributor">Shane McCarron</span>
<msporny> contributed to this test.
<msporny> </div>
<msporny> </p>
<msporny> </body>
<msporny> </html>
<msporny> -----------------------------------------------------------------
<msporny> ---------------------Test Case 123 SPARQL -----------------------
<msporny> ASK WHERE {
<msporny> <http://example.org/>
<msporny> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title>
<msporny> "Test Case 0123" .
<msporny> <http://example.org/>
<msporny> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/contributor>
<msporny> "Shane McCarron" .
<msporny> }
<msporny> ----------------------------------------------------------------
Shane: @href and @src are evaluated the same way
<msporny> +1
<markbirbeck> +1
Ben: +1
<mhausenblas> +1
RESOLUTION: test case 123 with [] invalid CURIE approved
<ShaneM> +1
<Ralph> +1, though recommend changing the SPAN content to give a semantically less confusing title
ACTION: Manu to create TC to test @resource="[]" does not set object based on TC 123. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
ACTION: Manu to look at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Dec/0037.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]
Manu: Didn't have time to look at it in depth.
<benadida> consensus from dec 4th:
<benadida> so I think we have consensus about @prefix='p1=u1 p2=u2 ...'
<benadida> ... and that @prefix='=u1' seems not to have value
<benadida> ... and @prefix='u1' may have value and should be further investigated
<benadida> --> http://www.w3.org/2008/12/04-rdfa-minutes.html#item02
benadida: We agree that there needs to be some
non-xml based approach to declare namespaces. Should it be called @prefix?
... We need to make that decision.
... We should confirm the idea that a "with" statement is not useful. We drop
the idea of @prefix="=u1".
... If we want to provide bundles, are they bundles of reserved words, or
more involved transformations.
markbirbeck: I don't think we finalized whether
the syntax within the attribute is "a=b" or "a:b" or something else.
... If it is some sort of transformation, it would be a set of
transformations defined using RDF.
... Fresnel is one example of this approach.
... Transformations are out of scope in a way, we don't need to overload the
RDFa parsing algorithm.
benadida: Do you have a draft of your deeper thoughts about this issue?
markbirbeck: I'm a bit weary of discussing this
off-list, prefer to have the discussion in the public.
... We're keen to address the issue
benadida: I agree.
markbirbeck: I like "keyword bundle"
benadida: It would be good to see how all this stuff plays together.
ShaneM: These should be two separate topics. @prefix is one, keyword bundles is the other.
benadida: Any other decisions that we need to make that are missing?
markbirbeck: there isn't any particular reason
that we couldn't end up with two more attributes.
... We could agree on @prefix and get that done.
... @token and keyword bundles could use another attribute.
... and it could come later.
<ShaneM> oooh - we could introduce curie-xxx attributes just to irritate people in the tag (that was sarcasm!)
@token would be used to specify these values at run-time.
server-curie-xx
benadida: We do have a proposal on the table for @prefix, prefix="p1=u1 p2=u2"
markbirbeck: There are some benefits to have @prefix in the HEAD - it could be argued that it should apply in the BODY.
ShaneM: Didn't we talk about using LINK to specify that?
markbirbeck: Yes, or we could extend it in some other way - a new element or attribute.
<ShaneM> I agree that having prefix / keyword bundles in the head that apply to the entire document makes sense.
Ben: regrets for 22 Jan
... next meeting: 22 Jan