15:44:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
15:44:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/11/19-rdfa-irc
15:45:00 <msporny> zakim, this will be rdfa
15:45:00 <Zakim> ok, msporny; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 15 minutes
15:46:02 <msporny> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:46:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/19-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
15:46:14 <msporny> rrsagent, make logs public
15:47:27 <msporny> Present: Manu_Sporny, Ivan_Herman, Mark_Birbeck, Ben_Adida, Shane_McCarron, Steven_Pemberton
15:47:59 <msporny> Meeting: RDF in XHTML Task Force
15:48:02 <msporny> Chair: Ben Adida
15:50:42 <msporny> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Nov/0078.html
15:51:22 <msporny> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-rdfa-minutes.html
15:51:35 <msporny> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:51:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/19-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
15:54:32 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:55:01 <ivan1> Manu, you are not supposed to be here, or have I misunderstood your mail?
15:56:07 <msporny> nope
15:56:10 <msporny> I'm not really here
15:56:46 <msporny> zakim and rrsagent are all setup, however
15:56:52 <msporny> scribenick: ivan1
15:57:37 <Zakim> SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started
15:57:44 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:57:52 <msporny> zakim, I am +[IPcaller]
15:57:52 <Zakim> sorry, msporny, I do not see a party named '+[IPcaller]'
15:58:01 <msporny> zakim, I am IPcaller
15:58:03 <Zakim> +McCarron
15:58:03 <Zakim> ok, msporny, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
15:58:11 <msporny> zakim, mute me
15:58:11 <Zakim> [IPcaller] should now be muted
15:58:45 <msporny> morning Shane, sorry to hear about your server woes :)
15:59:02 <ivan1> zakim, code?
15:59:04 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), ivan1
15:59:29 <Zakim> +ivan1
15:59:55 <ShaneM> server has recovered
15:59:56 <ShaneM> yay!
16:02:07 <Zakim> + +0208761aaaa
16:02:16 <markbirbeck> zakim, i am aaaa
16:02:16 <Zakim> +markbirbeck; got it
16:04:05 <Steven> Steven has joined #rdfa
16:04:21 <Steven> zakim, who is here?
16:04:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller] (muted), McCarron, ivan1, markbirbeck
16:04:22 <Zakim> On IRC I see Steven, ShaneM, RRSAgent, Zakim, msporny, ivan1, markbirbeck
16:04:30 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
16:04:33 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
16:04:34 <Zakim> +Steven
16:05:52 <msporny> scribenick: msporny
16:06:01 <msporny> Ivan: Ihave some questions /things that should be discussed
16:06:05 <msporny> Steven: me too
16:06:07 <Zakim> +Ben_Adida
16:06:13 <benadida> benadida has joined #rdfa
16:06:19 <msporny> scribenick: ivan1
16:07:17 <benadida> zakim, pick a victim
16:07:17 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose McCarron
16:07:35 <msporny> scribenick: McCarron
16:07:42 <ShaneM> zakim, McCarron is ShaneM
16:07:43 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
16:07:49 <ShaneM> Scribe: ShaneM
16:08:34 <ShaneM> Zakim, who is here
16:08:34 <Zakim> ShaneM, you need to end that query with '?'
16:08:38 <ShaneM> Zakim, who is here?
16:08:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller] (muted), ShaneM, ivan1, markbirbeck, Steven, Ben_Adida
16:08:40 <Zakim> On IRC I see benadida, Steven, ShaneM, RRSAgent, Zakim, msporny, ivan1, markbirbeck
16:08:50 <ShaneM> zakim, [IPcaller] is msporny
16:08:51 <Zakim> +msporny; got it
16:09:06 <ShaneM> Topic: Test Cases
16:09:18 <ShaneM> we are doing these via e-mail, but there is a general topic.
16:11:23 <Steven> put that in the record manu
16:11:44 <ShaneM> Topic: Action Items
16:12:06 <ShaneM> Manu's action to confert the charter to HTML format is complete.
16:12:23 <benadida> --> http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
16:12:54 <benadida> ACTION: Manu to convert WG Charter page to W3C charter format [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
16:12:56 <benadida> --done
16:13:17 <ShaneM> ACTION: Mark to author   URIs in @about, @rel, @rev, @typeof and @datatype spec text   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
16:13:34 <ShaneM> --continues - nearly don
16:13:43 <ivan1> s/don/done/
16:13:57 <msporny> we should accept the test cases based on the current published rules and then change the test cases if we change the rules in the future.
16:14:16 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: original proposal said we should advise people to use safe curies.
16:14:28 <ShaneM> ivan and shane said why bother?  It gets handled automatically.
16:15:04 <ShaneM> Ben seems to have opened the question again.  So there seems to be an open issue.  Should we encourage people to use safe curies or not?
16:15:26 <ShaneM> Also, what if a prefix name is used that collides with a scheme
16:16:54 <ShaneM> Steven says this is not a problem since if I meant it to be a prefix, it will always remain a prefix
16:17:52 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: if I edit that document later and am inserting a link that now uses some new scheme that collides with prefixes I declared ages ago, that could be an issue.
16:18:06 <ShaneM> benadida: As long as the document doesnt change meaning if the document is not edited later, it is not an issue
16:18:31 <ShaneM> ivan1: the chances for something like this to occur are non-zero, but it is so rare as to be uninteresting
16:18:36 <ShaneM> ivan1: we should put in some warning
16:19:50 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: we could plug all holes if we insist on a safe curie.  But if we are happy these edge cases are not a real issue, then let's leave it
16:20:03 <msporny> I don't think we should ever depend on people correctly using Safe CURIEs
16:20:09 <msporny> yes, I was in agreement with this direction.
16:21:22 <ShaneM> ivan1: if we keep to the priority in processing that we look to see if something is a CURIE or not, then this is backward compatible
16:21:39 <ShaneM> ivan1: if we go one step further, we could have relative URIs in @typeof
16:21:47 <msporny> I don't know if we should have relative URIs in @property - I realize the use case, but it's very uncommon.
16:22:04 <ShaneM> benadida: feels the use case is very rare.
16:22:14 <msporny> I think the reason to forbid it is because it overcomplicates RDF.
16:22:18 <ShaneM> ivan1: agrees but doesn't seem to find a reason to forbid it.
16:22:27 <msporny> s/RDF\./RDFa./
16:22:35 <ShaneM> benadida: RDF/XML is an example of having many ways to write the same thing, and this makes it complicated to learn.
16:22:46 <msporny> s/RDF\./RDFa\./
16:23:23 <ShaneM> benadida: if we have CURIEs and SafeCURIEs in the same datatype this is complicated
16:24:11 <ShaneM> ivan1: thinks that we have inconsistency in our rules today between @rel and @rev vs. @about and @resource
16:24:13 <msporny> That said, I would be in favor of playing down Safe CURIEs...
16:24:28 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: points out that we could downplay SafeCURIEs if we wanted too
16:24:46 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss tag objections
16:25:20 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: remarks that lately we have realized that if there is no defined prefix, it can be easily interpreted as a URI.  that means there is less possibility for confusion.
16:25:36 <msporny> I haven't seen Safe CURIEs used in the wild...
16:25:36 <ShaneM> benadida: if we are going this route, we should downplay the importance of SafeCURIEs
16:25:50 <ShaneM> benadida: Wants to wait to see Mark's proposed spec text before making a decision
16:25:52 <msporny> other than through somebody in this task force.
16:26:05 <benadida> ack shane
16:26:05 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss tag objections
16:26:35 <msporny> we might want to revisit this with the TAG based on our new findings.
16:26:53 <ShaneM> ShaneM: points out that the reason we have SafeCURIEs is that the TAG said we cannot put CURIEs and URIs in the same attribute
16:27:42 <ShaneM> ShaneM: the TAG didn't want the possibility for confusion on the part of humans, not software.
16:28:27 <ShaneM> ivan1: for many people this is a stumbling block (using full URIs instead of CURIEs)
16:28:33 <ShaneM> ShaneM: we are conflating two issues
16:28:39 <ShaneM> benadida: yes, but the one flows into the other
16:29:12 <ShaneM> benadida: proposes we wait for Mark's wording on this (but admits Ben is the hold up!)
16:29:43 <ShaneM> ivan1: make it clear to everyone (including the TAG) that we do not intend to introduce this behavior for non-RDFa attributes such as @href and @src
16:29:56 <Steven> q+
16:30:20 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: we can consider this as an RDF interpretation of existing markup
16:30:57 <ShaneM> Steven: w.r.t. Ivan's remark Steven thinks if we do this people are going to expect it to work in @href and @src.  The advantage of having two different notations
16:31:01 <markbirbeck> q+
16:31:17 <benadida> ack steven
16:31:23 <ivan1> ack steven
16:31:30 <msporny> We're going to get severe push-back from HTML WG if we change @href  and @src
16:31:45 <ShaneM> is that you KNOW it was not allowed in @href.  Validation might spot an error today.  Going forward there is no way that validation would catch the use of a CURIE in @href and @src
16:32:28 <ShaneM> benadida: But the browsers would not do it right... so page authors would notice immediately that their links didn't work
16:33:54 <ShaneM> ShaneM: at least if there is a SafeCURIE in @resource I would not be confused into thinking it was a URI.
16:34:27 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: That's not the point.  The point is that a consumer might think that @href=SafeCURIE should woirk.  and going forward @href=CURIE should work.  And they won't!
16:34:50 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: perhaps we should cross this bridge when we come to it.
16:35:32 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: the reason this is back on the agenda is because of HTML5.  And this change (full URIs just work) will help us get past the technical objection that some in the HTML5 community have raised.
16:35:41 <ShaneM> q?
16:35:43 <ShaneM> q-
16:35:52 <msporny> ack markbirbeck
16:35:52 <ShaneM> ack markbirbeck
16:36:58 <ShaneM> Steven: The issue isn't that we can say "we won't apply this to @href and @src" but that might not be compelling
16:37:14 <ShaneM> benadida: I dont see browser manufacturers implementing interpretation of CURIEs in @href and @src
16:37:15 <msporny> We should ask the TAG directly.
16:38:15 <msporny> I also think that the danger that Steven has outlined does exist... 
16:40:21 <msporny> If there is a chance of surprising somebody with this change, I think it would be best to point it out.
16:40:54 <ShaneM> ivan1: we should ensure that if we are moving in this direction we inform the objectors to CURIEs that there will be this option in the next version.
16:41:20 <ShaneM> ShaneM: I personally would object to a change that permits CURIEs in places where we only permits SafeCURIEs
16:41:40 <ShaneM> benadida: thinks we ar econverging
16:41:41 <ShaneM> ACTION: Manu to ask somebody to draft errata text, clarifying that prefixes cannot be '_' character   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]
16:41:45 <msporny> I haven't done that yet
16:41:52 <ShaneM> I did this.  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Nov/0043.html
16:41:56 <ShaneM> --done
16:41:58 <msporny> Thanks Shane :)
16:42:11 <ShaneM> ACTION: Ben to finish   authoring RDFa WG charter. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
16:42:12 <ShaneM> --done
16:42:26 <ShaneM> ACTION: Manu to   aggressively push review of test cases via mailing list [recorded   in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/29-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
16:42:32 <msporny> -- continues
16:42:48 <ShaneM> --continues
16:43:02 <ShaneM> ACTION: Manu to try   and find other interested parties in RDFa WG. [recorded in   http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
16:43:05 <ShaneM> --continues
16:43:12 <ShaneM> ACTION: Shane to   re-draft XMLLiteral errata text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action04]
16:43:31 <ShaneM> --done
16:43:46 <benadida> consider thew new XMLLiteral errata text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Nov/0044.html
16:43:53 <benadida> +1
16:44:12 <markbirbeck> +1
16:44:40 <ShaneM> +1 (obviously)
16:44:54 <Steven> +1
16:45:18 <benadida> RESOLVED to accept the XMLLiteral errata text
16:45:27 <benadida> consider the _ prefix errata text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Nov/0043.html
16:45:30 <Zakim> -msporny
16:46:00 <benadida> +1
16:46:01 <Steven> +1
16:46:08 <ShaneM> +1 
16:47:40 <ShaneM> ivan1: why "SHOULD NOT" instead of "MUST NOT" for authors
16:47:56 <ivan1> +1
16:47:58 <ShaneM> ShaneM: I have never seen a spec where we said "MUST NOT" to a spec author
16:48:12 <benadida> RESOLVED to accept the _ prefix errata text
16:48:16 <markbirbeck> Abstaining. :)
16:48:28 <ShaneM> Topic: Working Group Charter
16:48:36 <Steven> q+
16:48:52 <markbirbeck> I have use-cases for redefining '_', but they're a little esoteric.
16:49:04 <ShaneM> ivan1: I made some edits and initiated some discussion within the W3C (management team etc.)
16:49:40 <ShaneM> ivan1: for the time being it seems fine.  Mike Smith suggested we make the Javascript API a higher priority.
16:50:04 <ShaneM> ivan1: If everything goes well this week or monday we will let the AC know we are planning to move ahead with this charter.
16:50:08 <ivan1> http://www.w3.org/2009/11/rdfa-wg-charter.html
16:50:12 <ShaneM> ivan1: 
16:52:58 <ShaneM> ivan1: removed text that would cause people to be concerned about the open-endedness of the charter.  The charter has specific deliverables.  That should help assuage concerns about open-endedness
16:54:00 <ShaneM> ACTION:  Someone let Ivan know what Open Document Format reference to use in the charter 
16:54:31 <ShaneM> Steven: notes that we list coordination with external groups when they are outside of W3C.
16:55:12 <Steven> Here is the ODF TC link - http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office
16:55:14 <ShaneM> ivan1: pushed out milestones by a month because it assumed we would start in January, and that was not going to happen
16:56:01 <ShaneM> ivan1: we could stretch the deliverables out to make it easier.
16:56:21 <Steven> q?
16:56:27 <ShaneM> benadida: the draft plans for slack time by having the schedule tight, but has the end of the charter out a little bit
16:56:59 <ShaneM> ivan1: we can extend the charter if we need to when deadlines are missed.  dont' need to build in slack in this way.
16:57:56 <ShaneM> ivan1: some deliverables in the charter look like software development.  W3C working groups do not develop software.  also, it looks like that is what the group would be doing in its last 8 months.  that might be bad.
16:57:59 <ShaneM> ack Steven
16:58:50 <ShaneM> Steven: discussed the charter with the Interaction Domain team group.  They felt we should be doing work on some basic set of advised vocabularies as a way to help people start using RDFa more quickly.
16:59:06 <ShaneM> Steven: Suggests we say we will produce a cookbook or produce standard vocabularies
16:59:33 <ShaneM> ivan1: vocabularies is not an RDFa issue.  it is a semweb issue. this group should not pick it up.
17:00:07 <ShaneM> ivan1: having something that is richer than the Primer (e.g., a Cookbook) that uses some of the vocabs out there as examples might be a real benefit.  We should not be blessing vocabs.
17:00:24 <markbirbeck> +1 to Ivan
17:01:13 <ShaneM> Steven: I think a cookbook / examples is just fine and will help address their problem.
17:01:24 <ShaneM> ShaneM: +1 to Ivan
17:01:53 <ShaneM> ivan1: RDFa is a serialization syntax - vocab to use is a general sem web issue.
17:02:05 <ShaneM> re: software development...
17:02:40 <ShaneM> benadida: understands w3c is not in the software implementation business.  However, when we started building prototypes of RDFa things really moved ahead.
17:02:44 <markbirbeck> q+
17:02:53 <ivan1> q+
17:03:12 <ShaneM> benadida: if we shouldn't put them in the charter that's one thing.  but we should still prototype to ensure that things work!
17:03:45 <ivan1> ack markbirbeck
17:04:44 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: not convinced things took off when we started prototyping.  The problem is that mentioning specific libraries like jQuery or Dojo might be limiting.  we should not be pushing a specific library set.  We should have something more abstract but we should not lock ourselves in and therefore miss whatever is going to be happening two years from now.
17:05:25 <ShaneM> ivan1: +1 to Mark.  moreover, saying we are adapting to jQuery or Dojo or whatever, that is something individuals are doing to ensure that the ideas work.  It should not be a deliverable of the working group though.
17:06:46 <ShaneM> ivan1: should have in the scope and deliverables more detailed text about community building.  We have the Primer.  We could do a note about triple store.  There could be a cookbook.  But we could also say that at the end of the working group we have a deliverable that is a Note about how RDfa is used in practice and what libraries are around at the time and how RDFa is used in the wild.  This is the 'start of the art' at the time.
17:07:38 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss state of the art document
17:07:42 <ShaneM> ack ivan
17:09:18 <ShaneM> benadida: feels there should be implementation work, but if there is no room for it in the charter so be it
17:09:44 <ShaneM> ShaneM: is concerned that a Note at the end becomes some 'iconic thing' that gets referred to forever even though it is immediately out of date
17:10:30 <ShaneM> ivan1: What I try to do is set up wikis for groups so that it can be maintained over time, rather than just producing a Note.  Make it explciit that there is also a wiki so the community can keep it up once the group ends
17:10:45 <ShaneM> ivan1: knows there is already a wiki outside of w3c space.  
17:11:53 <ShaneM> ivan1: sem web wiki was just set up by Ivan.  For the time being, in the sem web wiki there is apointer to the existing RDFa wiki.
17:12:09 <ShaneM> ivan1: 'I am not in the business of trying to rule the world'.
17:12:11 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
17:12:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/11/19-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
17:12:18 <markbirbeck> apologies...I have to go and get the kids
17:12:32 <markbirbeck> catch you all later.
17:12:40 <Steven> n
17:12:47 <Zakim> -markbirbeck
17:13:00 <ShaneM> +1 to including community building in the charter
17:13:13 <Zakim> -ShaneM
17:13:18 <Steven> I have to go to.
17:13:22 <Zakim> -Steven
17:14:00 <benadida> ACTION: Steven and/or Manu to give Ivan pointers to ODF for WG charter
17:14:17 <benadida> ACTION: Ivan to updated charter remove dojo/jquery specifics, add community building on wiki paragraph, and stretch timeline.
17:15:55 <Zakim> -Ben_Adida
17:16:02 <Zakim> -ivan1
17:16:03 <Zakim> SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended
17:16:06 <Zakim> Attendees were ivan1, +0208761aaaa, markbirbeck, Steven, Ben_Adida, ShaneM, msporny
17:26:42 <ShaneM> ShaneM has left #rdfa
19:31:34 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfa