RDFa in XHTML Task Force

Ralph: I have an addition to the agenda
... May not need a lot of discussion in today's telecon

Action Review

<scribe> 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]

<scribe> 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]

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

<scribe> ACTION: Mark to send Ben ubiquity related wizard stuff [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUES]

Ben: It would be very useful to have ways to drop in RDFa on their pages.

<scribe> ACTION: Mark to send Ben ubiquity related wizard stuff [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUES]

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

<scribe> 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]

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph or Steven fix the .htaccess for the XHTML namespace [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]

<Ralph> discussion

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

<markbirbeck> http://rdfa.info/wiki/RDFa_Recipes

http://rdfa.info/wiki/Tutorials

<Steven> http://rdfa.info/wiki/RSS1-tutorial

http://rdfa.info/wiki/Audio-tutorial

Mark: some of these tutorials look more like recipes to me

Manu: yes, I agree

Mark: I do think recipes are a great resource; lots of snippets for people to grab

Manu: could move snippets to a recipes section and link to Mark's blog

... might be nice for the RDFa wiki to have [copies of] everything

Mark: we could create some stub pages ala Wikipedia too, to enlist community help

Ralph: I'm not yet prepared to admit defeat on my RSS+RDFa ACTION :)

RDFa IG status update from Ralph

Ralph: I said I'd talk with Ivan about an XG or IG.
... My sense of the discussion is that Ivan concurs that an XG is ok but he prefers an IG.
... A difference between an IG and XG for what they can publish is that an XG does not publish Working Drafts, whereas an IG can.
... There is no prohibition from an XG publishing something - it can publish an XG report.
... It's usually in the form of a straw-man proposal.
... There's no precedent for publishing multiple working drafts of an XG report that I can think of, but nothing should stop that from happening.
... IG takes a formal proposal to AC.

Steven: I'm worried that people will get the wrong idea, XG is meant to incubate and be a starter.
... an IG is meant to continue work... it's more process to get started and it seems to fit better with what we're doing.
... I don't see the AC not agreeing to IG.

Ben: Yes, seems like IG would be a good way to go.

Ralph: To specifically carry forward the design discussions, I'd characterize that as RDFa in HTML and that's a well-scoped task that we can give to any group.
... I do think that an IG is beneficial and would be fairly easy to make happen.

Manu: +1 for IG

Ralph: IG expect team contact resources - which is both good and bad. Depends on if we have extra people to put on it that is interested.
... I'm certainly interested, but I'm afraid that I may not have the time.

Steven: I may have the time for the team contact role.

Ben: Sounds like IG, even with the overhead, is the more appropriate direction.
... anybody else prefer XG?

Steven: We should make it clear that RDFa is a W3C technology and it should get resources from W3C going forward.

Manu: Where does the IG charter proposal have to come from?

Ralph: usually comes from the activity lead, Ivan in this case, then to W3C management, which approves and sends to AC to discuss and then to the Director for approval.
... Anybody can draft it.

Ben: I'm happy to put some time into that... would be high on my priority list.
... We could do this on the wiki - draft the charter on the wiki.

<ShaneM> Note that our current structure continues under the XHTML 2 working group until the end of 2009.

Ralph: There is a charter template that we can put on the wiki.

<scribe> ACTION: Ben to author wiki page with charter template for RDFa IG. Manu to provide support where needed. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]

<Ralph> How to Creat an Interest Group

Ralph: Charter aggregator/generator is on that page.

Sorting priorities - @token, RDFa Profiles, HTML+RDFa

Manu: the order in the agenda is just random, not necessarily reflecting my preferences
... @token and profiles interact
... HTML+RDFa has gotten interest from others who want to see it pushed forward
... my preference would be to focus primarily on HTML+RDFa discussion
... @token and profiles discussion *may* help solve problems with HTML+RDFa but otherwise are secondary

Ben: different TF participants might work in parallel

<ShaneM> FWIW I feel the "issues" related to RDFa in HTML (4) are basically the same as any issues related to RDFa in HTML 5.

Mark: here's how I work out what the priorities should be
... adoption does not seem to be hampered by the fact that we've written XHTML+RDFa, not HTML+RDFa
... there some subtleties such as nsprefixes not all in the same case, XML literals
... but this doesn't appear to be stopping people from using RDFa
... we're going in the right direction; HTML5 aside, what would we be doing next?
... I'd pay attention to avoiding fragmentation
... perhaps discussion on a core document that's neither HTML nor XHTML
... use that core document as a mechanism to address XML literals

<Steven> +1 to promulgation being a priority

<ShaneM> +1

Ben: is there a conflict between what we're promulgating right now in our examples with what's going on in the HTML WG?

Manu: I don't think any of us here think there's a conflict but that opinion isn't shared by some others

Ben: Shane's HTML4+RDFa document shows a mechanism that works with HTML5

Manu: some good issues -- mostly corner cases -- are being brought up though

Ben: yes, we should resolve the edge cases but that need not stop us from continuing to promulgate the examples

Manu: we haven't run a lot of our tests against HTML4 and HTML5 documents

Ben: I run all my tests in Firefox with javascript
... maybe there's no conflict between fixing edge cases and further promulgation of examples

Manu: not sure we currently have enough data to say
... not sure we can safely say there will be no issues

Ben: if folk are doing wierd things such as not paying attention to case sensitivity, that would be a conflict
... but new @rel values do not present hard conflicts

Shane: we should avoid use cases where prefix names are anything other than lowercase and examples that use XML literals
... it's OK for us to promote our Recommendation

... just avoid things we know are problems and we're fine

Ben: We're going to have different priorities, some are going to focus on HTML+RDFa, some are going to focus on @token, others RDFa Profile.
... Immediate priority is helping Sam Ruby help us with HTML+RDFa

HTML+RDFa Issues and Requirements

<msporny> http://rdfa.info/wiki/Rdfa-in-html-issues

Manu: my suggested priorities ...
... issues page documents everything raised in the long thread
... case sensitivity and @xmlns are the two biggest issues
... several issues related to @xmlns; empty prefixes, underscores, etc.

Ben: those related issues I'd characterize as edge cases

<msporny> http://rdfa.info/wiki/Rdfa-in-html-requirements

Manu: regarding requirements, there are quite a number of conflicting requirements
... I have not yet sorted through all of this
... Sam Ruby's request asking us to address his comments is reasonable
... we're slower to respond than some people prefer which is apparently interpreted as lack of transparency, even though we're being open

<ShaneM> FWIW Philip has said that we are responsive - it was Sam who said we were not responding to Philip

Ben: case sensitivity is more important to address than some other comments
... some things that have been raised as comments are really non-issues
... I'll put some time into helping with these responses

Manu: I created the wiki page because people were complaining that we hadn't acknowledged some messages after 2-10 days

Ben: Can we set up an issue tracker for this stuff?

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph make a request for an RDFa issue tracker instance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]

Ben: We are going to be extremely transparent about this, as we have always been.

<scribe> ACTION: Manu to go through and categorize issues and requirements that we should address going forward. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]

Steven: Should we go back to weekly meetings?

Manu: +1 for weekly meetings.

Ben: Is that okay to go back to weekly meetings?

Steven: If people are thinking that we're slow about this stuff, we should step it up and meet weekly.

Mark: Yes, weekly sounds good.

Ben: Let's go to weekly meetings then.

<Ralph> [I'll send mail about issue-214]