14:45:53 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 14:45:53 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/08/13-rdfa-irc 14:46:00 Zakim has joined #rdfa 14:46:08 zakim, this will be rdfa 14:46:08 ok, msporny; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes 14:46:19 Scribe: Manu_Sporny 14:46:27 ScribeNick: msporny 14:46:44 Meeting: RDF in XHTML Task Force 14:46:52 Chair: Manu_Sporny 14:47:17 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Aug/0093.html 14:47:33 Previous: http://www.w3.org/2009/08/06-rdfa-minutes 14:47:43 Present: Manu_Sporny 14:47:52 Regrets: Ben_Adida, Ralph_Swick 14:49:10 rrsagent, make log public 14:49:16 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:49:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/08/13-rdfa-minutes.html msporny 15:00:33 markbirbeck has joined #rdfa 15:00:53 zakim, code? 15:00:53 the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck 15:01:34 SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started 15:01:42 +??P3 15:01:43 zakim, I am ??P3 15:01:43 +msporny; got it 15:01:46 zakim, dial steven-617 15:01:47 ok, Steven; the call is being made 15:01:47 +Steven 15:02:11 +markbirbeck 15:04:13 Topic: Action Items 15:04:28 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] 15:04:49 -- done 15:05:07 ACTION: Manu to finalize RDFa IG charter template. 15:05:24 Manu: Ben said that we should review RDFa IG charter template. 15:05:59 ACTION: Shane to produce proposed diff re: XMLLiteral change [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/07/30-rdfa-minutes.html#action03] 15:06:03 -- continues 15:06:23 Steven: RDFa IG has suggestions for RDFa 1.1 15:06:40 Steven: Can an RDFa IG do RDFa 1.1? 15:06:52 Steven: We would need a WG for a next version of RDFa 1.1 15:10:08 markbirbeck: Why don't you co-chair RDFa? 15:10:26 Manu: Not sure if I have the time to do so, but Ben may want this as well as he's increasingly busy these days. 15:11:37 "This document defines three types of groups: 15:11:37 Working Groups. Working Groups typically produce deliverables (e.g., Recommendation Track technical reports, software, test suites, and reviews of the deliverables of other groups). There are Good Standing requirements for Working Group participation as well as additional participation requirements described in the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33]. 15:11:37 Interest Groups. The primary goal of an Interest Group is to bring together people who wish to evaluate potential Web technologies and policies. An Interest Group is a forum for the exchange of ideas. 15:11:37 Coordination Groups. A Coordination Group manages dependencies and facilitates communication with other groups, within or outside of W3C. 15:11:40 : 15:11:44 " 15:11:49 http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#ReqsAllGroups 15:12:07 Manu: We need to speak with Ralph about generating an RDFa 1.1 in an IG. 15:12:24 Topic: RDFa IG (review/approve charter) and Suggestions for RDFa 1.1 15:13:05 Manu: any other requirements for a WG? 15:13:53 Steven: We need a staff contact. 15:14:40 Steven: Is 1 year enough? 15:15:02 Manu: Don't know if we want more time... 15:15:13 markbirbeck: I agree with Steven, we need more time 15:15:16 Manu: Two years? 15:15:29 markbirbeck: Should it be the embedded metadata interest group? 15:15:34 It lways takes longer than you expect 15:16:16 markbirbeck: As time moves on, we may find ourselves dealing with other types of embedded metadata. 15:16:24 Steven: Yes, it's good if we generalize without making it vague. 15:17:08 Manu: So, this group would talk about RDFa, Microformats, and Microdata? 15:17:17 markbirbeck: Maybe we should throw in Linked Data as well. 15:17:27 markbirbeck: We are not interested in SPARQL or pure RDF/XML or N3. 15:17:39 markbirbeck: We're interested in expressing metadata/RDF in HTML. 15:17:56 markbirbeck: We might want to broaden the participation. 15:18:49 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 15:19:01 Manu: +1 to the idea 15:19:19 Manu: this wouldn't change much of the language in the charter. 15:19:32 Steven: I dislike the out of scope section. 15:19:45 markbirbeck: Yes, you're right. 15:19:57 markbirbeck: Everything else is out of scope, so why specifically mention HTML5. 15:20:04 +McCarron 15:20:19 zakim, McCarron is ShaneM 15:20:19 +ShaneM; got it 15:20:49 http://rdfa.info/wiki/Rdfa-ig-charter 15:21:41 Steven: If an IG is not allowed to RDFa 1.1, we have to do a WG. 15:21:58 ShaneM: +1 15:22:00 Manu: +1 15:22:02 +1 15:22:22 Topic: Features in RDFa 1.1 15:22:43 Steven: Let's not discuss that - that's a task of the new WG. 15:22:53 Manu: Anyone else object to not talking about it? 15:23:03 Manu: No objections noted, continuing on. 15:23:46 Topic: @profile discussion 15:25:43 Manu: Ben was asking for a way to set the default prefix. 15:26:59 Manu: and that would in-turn use RDF reasoning agents to figure out the proper term. 15:29:12 Manu: What Mark is saying is that @token is for specifying mappings for CURIEs. 15:30:00 Manu: Mark is asserting that loading external vocabularies is a separate discussion, but @token does apply to that discussion. 15:30:30 q+ to remind that OWL is a red herring 15:30:35 markbirbeck: There may not even be an OWL/RDFs reasoning agent behind the mapping. 15:30:55 markbirbeck: I'm trying to propose a simple mechanism for mapping URIs. 15:31:39 markbirbeck: URIs are kinda like the infrastructure... we're trying to make URIs easier to manage. 15:32:03 ack shanem 15:32:03 ShaneM, you wanted to remind that OWL is a red herring 15:32:15 ShaneM: You mentioned OWL - OWL is a red herring. 15:32:30 ShaneM: You don't need OWL to say X is the same as Y. 15:32:43 ShaneM: Crafting ontologies are not for the meek. 15:33:10 q+ 15:33:13 ShaneM: Having an inline mechanism for defining additional reserved words is orthogonal to this other stuff. 15:33:49 ShaneM: If we can have an inline mechanism for defining additional reserved words, there is value in that. 15:34:17 ShaneM: Ben wants to solve the use case... 15:37:29 ShaneM: How do we specify vocabularies that are easy for people to access? 15:37:39 ack markbirbeck 15:38:07 markbirbeck: Don't know if OWL is quite a red herring - I think they mean RDFS... 15:38:20 markbirbeck: We're talking about mapping one property to another. 15:38:30 markbirbeck: He is talking about mapping properties/classes. 15:38:42 -Steven 15:38:43 Manu: We may want to approach this from another direction. 15:38:58 phone probs, brb 15:39:08 Manu: Thinking about it from conformance levels might be helpful. 15:39:17 Manu: RDFa Level 1 - all triples are generated from the document. 15:39:51 Manu: RDFa Level 2 - Loading external network documents is required for processor conformance. 15:39:59 zakim, dial stehttp://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#ReqsAllGroupsen-617 15:39:59 I am sorry, Steven; I do not know a number for stehttp://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#ReqsAllGroupsen-617 15:40:15 zakim, dial steven-617 15:40:15 ok, Steven; the call is being made 15:40:17 +Steven 15:40:17 markbirbeck: I don't know if we need to make the differentiation. 15:40:50 markbirbeck: W3C has many specs that require network access. 15:41:10 markbirbeck: We're talking about using a URI to specify a profile. 15:41:17 markbirbeck: You start with a document and then you specify fallbacks. 15:41:39 markbirbeck: Nobody said that the thing pointed to by @profile must be an RDFa document. 15:42:17 markbirbeck: It could be a JSON formatted document... you could retrieve information. 15:42:35 markbirbeck: That doesn't require XMLHttpRequest... 15:42:51 markbirbeck: You could do it with a