RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 06 October 2011

Agenda
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Oct/0000.html
Seen
Gregg Kellogg, Henri Bergius, Ivan Herman, Manu Sporny, Niklas Lindström, Shane McCarron, Steven Pemberton, Stéphane Corlosquet, Toby Inkster
Guests
Niklas Lindström, Toby Inkster, Henri Bergius
Chair
Manu Sporny
Scribe
Shane McCarron
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. RDFa Core 1.1 is a set of attributes. There are other specs that are just sets of attributes like xml:base, aria, xml:id, XML namespaces, XLink) and those do not define media types. RDFa Core 1.1 falls into the same category as these specs, that is, it doesn't require a Media Type registration. link
  2. The SVG Tiny 1.1 spec and the ODF spec already refers to the RDFa specification, therefore no action is necessary. link
  3. The text/xml, application/xml, text/html and application/xhtml+xml Media Types are not under the purview of this Working Group and therefore this WG cannot refer to the RDFa Core 1.1 or XHTML+RDFa or HTML+RDFa or Microdata specifications. The WG associated with each of those Media Types will need to add them to the associated specification. link
  4. Use the terminology 'initial evaluation context' to specify the initial list of terms and prefixes that should be used by a processor. link
Topics
13:27:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/06-rdfa-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/06-rdfa-irc

13:27:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

13:27:37 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332

13:27:37 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 33 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 33 minutes

13:27:38 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:27:38 <trackbot> Date: 06 October 2011
13:27:47 <ivan> Chair: Manu
13:55:42 <manu1> Guest: Niklas (lindstream) Lindström
13:55:42 <manu1> Guest: Toby (tinkster) Inkster
13:55:42 <manu1> Guest: Henri (bergie) Bergius
13:56:18 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Oct/0000.html
14:00:05 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started

(No events recorded for 32 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started

14:00:13 <Zakim> +??P11

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P11

14:00:21 <ShaneM> zakim, I am ??P11

Shane McCarron: zakim, I am ??P11

14:00:31 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM; got it

14:00:31 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip

14:00:41 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made

14:00:43 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan

14:00:45 <Zakim> +??P25

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P25

14:00:47 <Zakim> +??P20

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P20

14:00:50 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P25

Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P25

14:00:50 <Zakim> +manu1; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it

14:01:00 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P20

Niklas Lindström: zakim, I am ??P20

14:01:01 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +niklasl; got it

14:01:16 <Zakim> +scor

Zakim IRC Bot: +scor

14:02:35 <Zakim> +??P41

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P41

14:02:59 <Zakim> + +1.415.686.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.415.686.aaaa

14:03:12 <gkellogg> zakim, I am +1.415.686.aaaa

Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am +1.415.686.aaaa

14:03:12 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it

14:03:26 <bergie> zakim, I am ??P41

Henri Bergius: zakim, I am ??P41

14:03:26 <Zakim> +bergie; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bergie; got it

14:04:08 <Zakim> +Steven

Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven

14:04:33 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?

Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call?

14:04:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see ShaneM, Ivan, manu1, niklasl, scor, bergie, gkellogg, Steven

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ShaneM, Ivan, manu1, niklasl, scor, bergie, gkellogg, Steven

14:04:48 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Oct/0000.html
14:04:57 <manu1> scribenick: ShaneM

(Scribe set to Shane McCarron)

14:05:39 <niklasl> q+

Niklas Lindström: q+

14:05:48 <Steven> I posted an announcement of ODF 1.2 to rdfa.info

Steven Pemberton: I posted an announcement of ODF 1.2 to rdfa.info

14:06:07 <manu1> ack niklasl

Manu Sporny: ack niklasl

14:06:18 <ShaneM> TOPIC: Rechartering

1. Rechartering

14:06:19 <ShaneM> Ivan notes that we don't need to recharter to change @src. Manu is concerned that moving API work to a Community Group may require re-chartering.

Ivan notes that we don't need to recharter to change @src. Manu is concerned that moving API work to a Community Group may require re-chartering.

14:06:19 <ShaneM> Ivan: However, before we get into this - we have a number of remaining technical issues.

Ivan Herman: However, before we get into this - we have a number of remaining technical issues.

14:06:45 <manu1> Topic: Remaining Technical Issues

2. Remaining Technical Issues

14:07:30 <Zakim> +??P57

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P57

14:07:39 <ShaneM> 1) We need to decide on what the list of acceptable terms defined by the initialization context are in HTML and XHTML.

1) We need to decide on what the list of acceptable terms defined by the initialization context are in HTML and XHTML.

14:07:54 <ShaneM> 2) We need to specify the behavior of @inlist and @rev, when used together.

2) We need to specify the behavior of @inlist and @rev, when used together.

14:08:08 <ShaneM> 3) We need to figure out what to call "Default Profiles" now that we don't have profiles, and how those documents are expressed.

3) We need to figure out what to call "Default Profiles" now that we don't have profiles, and how those documents are expressed.

14:08:11 <gkellogg> 4) We need to discuss multi-valued @about and @resource.

Gregg Kellogg: 4) We need to discuss multi-valued @about and @resource.

14:09:29 <ShaneM> MS: We should deal with these issues before we discuss the administrative issues

Manu Sporny: We should deal with these issues before we discuss the administrative issues

14:09:34 <manu1> q+ to clarify what we're doing about LC

Manu Sporny: q+ to clarify what we're doing about LC

14:09:57 <ShaneM> IH: We shouldn't put out a new last call before the HTML Data task force has done anything.  That wouldn't be very smart.

Ivan Herman: We shouldn't put out a new last call before the HTML Data task force has done anything. That wouldn't be very smart.

14:10:22 <ShaneM> ... Gregg's issue is something that is within the baliwick of that taskforce.

... Gregg's issue is something that is within the baliwick of that taskforce.

14:10:53 <ShaneM> ... my proposal is that we get the draft done with everything sorted except the multi @about / @ resource and publish a working draft.

... my proposal is that we get the draft done with everything sorted except the multi @about / @ resource and publish a working draft.

14:10:54 <manu1> ack manu1

Manu Sporny: ack manu1

14:10:54 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to clarify what we're doing about LC

Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to clarify what we're doing about LC

14:11:33 <ShaneM> MS: I agree.  What I was trying to say is that we should start moving towards last call.  We need to make it clear to everyone that we are planning on this.  The technical issues are sorted modulo stuff on the call.

Manu Sporny: I agree. What I was trying to say is that we should start moving towards last call. We need to make it clear to everyone that we are planning on this. The technical issues are sorted modulo stuff on the call.

14:11:49 <ShaneM> IH: Yes, but we should stil do a working draft so the task force has a solid thing to look at.

Ivan Herman: Yes, but we should stil do a working draft so the task force has a solid thing to look at.

14:12:51 <ShaneM> MS: I did talk with Jeni, and she thinks that we have addressed most issues already.  multi about / resource has no use cases.  img / src change might be requested, but we are already planning to do that.

Manu Sporny: I did talk with Jeni, and she thinks that we have addressed most issues already. multi about / resource has no use cases. img / src change might be requested, but we are already planning to do that.

14:13:00 <Zakim> +??P60

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P60

14:13:16 <ShaneM> ... itemref-like support.  We have pushed back on that - no strong use case.  We might do something close to it with multi about / resource.

... itemref-like support. We have pushed back on that - no strong use case. We might do something close to it with multi about / resource.

14:13:23 <bergie> Zakim, +??P60 is me

Henri Bergius: Zakim, +??P60 is me

14:13:23 <Zakim> sorry, bergie, I do not recognize a party named '+??P60'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, bergie, I do not recognize a party named '+??P60'

14:13:54 <bergie> Zakim, i am ??P60

Henri Bergius: Zakim, i am ??P60

14:13:54 <Zakim> +bergie; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bergie; got it

14:14:01 <ShaneM> MS: My concern is that we are not pushing this out and are thus creating more and more confusion in the market about RDFa. Let's get this done and out there.

Manu Sporny: My concern is that we are not pushing this out and are thus creating more and more confusion in the market about RDFa. Let's get this done and out there.

14:14:31 <ShaneM> ... any additional changes we might make would be to address schema.org requirements, but they seem to be on board with most of RDFa 1.1 at this point.

... any additional changes we might make would be to address schema.org requirements, but they seem to be on board with most of RDFa 1.1 at this point.

14:15:48 <ShaneM> MS: rough plan is have technical discussions, generate a working draft, let people know we need feedback if they have concerns before we go into third last call.

Manu Sporny: rough plan is have technical discussions, generate a working draft, let people know we need feedback if they have concerns before we go into third last call.

14:17:07 <ShaneM> Topic: Media Types and RDFa TAG Issue

3. Media Types and RDFa TAG Issue

14:17:07 <ShaneM> MS: one more issue.... TimBL has some concerns about W3C specs that have no media type associated. This may become a TAG issue. RDFa Core 1.1 does not define a media type for XML+RDFa - should it?

Manu Sporny: one more issue.... TimBL has some concerns about W3C specs that have no media type associated. This may become a TAG issue. RDFa Core 1.1 does not define a media type for XML+RDFa - should it?

14:17:14 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss media type

q+ to discuss media type

14:17:37 <ShaneM> ... The tag would like there to be some way to follow your nose from the Media Type of a document to the spec to realize what format the document is in.

... The tag would like there to be some way to follow your nose from the Media Type of a document to the spec to realize what format the document is in.

14:18:12 <ShaneM> ... one option is to change text/html and application/xhtml+xml to say that there might be RDFa in such a document.

... one option is to change text/html and application/xhtml+xml to say that there might be RDFa in such a document.

14:18:38 <Zakim> +??P63

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P63

14:18:44 <ShaneM> IH: The HTML5 spec will eventually include RDFa.

Ivan Herman: The HTML5 spec will eventually include RDFa.

14:18:48 <ShaneM> MS: No, it will not. HTML+RDFa spec is layered on top of HTML5 - HTML5 will never refer to RDFa (based on the current direction of the HTML WG)

Manu Sporny: No, it will not. HTML+RDFa spec is layered on top of HTML5 - HTML5 will never refer to RDFa (based on the current direction of the HTML WG)

14:18:49 <bergie> Zakim, i am ??P63

Henri Bergius: Zakim, i am ??P63

14:18:49 <Zakim> +bergie; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bergie; got it

14:19:24 <manu1> ack shaneM

Manu Sporny: ack shaneM

14:19:24 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss media type

Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to discuss media type

14:19:53 <manu1> ShaneM: Don't forget in Core 1.1, we also have XML+RDFa 1.1 and we don't have a media type for that... and we're not going to be able to change text/xml and application/xml

Shane McCarron: Don't forget in Core 1.1, we also have XML+RDFa 1.1 and we don't have a media type for that... and we're not going to be able to change text/xml and application/xml [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]

14:20:17 <manu1> ShaneM: If this is a real concern, we might need to do a registration for text/rdfa+xml or application/rdfa+xml

Shane McCarron: If this is a real concern, we might need to do a registration for text/rdfa+xml or application/rdfa+xml [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]

14:20:51 <manu1> Ivan: I thought registrations were pretty easy.

Ivan Herman: I thought registrations were pretty easy. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]

14:22:00 <gkellogg> q+

Gregg Kellogg: q+

14:22:23 <manu1> ShaneM: GRDDL announcement mechanism might be adequate.

Shane McCarron: GRDDL announcement mechanism might be adequate. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]

14:22:29 <manu1> ack gkellogg

Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg

14:23:17 <ShaneM> GK: It seems like microdata and rdfa are at odds here.  There is no way to know.  Second the point of RDFa is that you can annotate any language.  This puts the whole situation on its head.

Gregg Kellogg: It seems like microdata and rdfa are at odds here. There is no way to know. Second the point of RDFa is that you can annotate any language. This puts the whole situation on its head.

14:23:50 <ShaneM> MS: is there a way to handle this?

Manu Sporny: is there a way to handle this?

14:23:53 <niklasl> q+

Niklas Lindström: q+

14:24:02 <ShaneM> GK: We could parameterize them. It is supported.

Gregg Kellogg: We could parameterize them. It is supported.

14:24:12 <manu1> ack niklasl

Manu Sporny: ack niklasl

14:24:13 <ShaneM> q+ to ask Steven about parameterization

q+ to ask Steven about parameterization

14:24:33 <ShaneM> NL: How is it with SVG Tiny - does it link to RDFa 1.0?

Niklas Lindström: How is it with SVG Tiny - does it link to RDFa 1.0?

14:24:36 <tinkster> Re media types, RDFa is not a set of elements, but a set of attributes. Other W3C specs that define sets of XML attributes (e.g. xml:base spec, xml:id spec, XML namespaces spec, XLink, etc) do not define media types.

Toby Inkster: Re media types, RDFa is not a set of elements, but a set of attributes. Other W3C specs that define sets of XML attributes (e.g. xml:base spec, xml:id spec, XML namespaces spec, XLink, etc) do not define media types.

14:24:55 <ShaneM> IH: The SVG document says that there are ways to incorporate metadata via RDFa 1.0

Ivan Herman: The SVG document says that there are ways to incorporate metadata via RDFa 1.0

14:25:10 <scor> q+

Stéphane Corlosquet: q+

14:25:39 <manu1> ack shanem

Manu Sporny: ack shanem

14:25:39 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask Steven about parameterization

Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to ask Steven about parameterization

14:25:58 <manu1> q+ to kick back issue to HTML WG?

Manu Sporny: q+ to kick back issue to HTML WG?

14:26:25 <manu1> ShaneM: Steven, we talked a bit about parameterization of the media type in XHTML2... could we use that?

Shane McCarron: Steven, we talked a bit about parameterization of the media type in XHTML2... could we use that? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]

14:26:30 <ivan> ack scor

Ivan Herman: ack scor

14:26:31 <ShaneM> Steven: I don't remember how we discussed using parameters in XHTML2.

Steven Pemberton: I don't remember how we discussed using parameters in XHTML2.

14:26:49 <Steven> I remember the discussion, but not the conclusion

Steven Pemberton: I remember the discussion, but not the conclusion

14:27:20 <Steven> Certainly some XHTML's get announced with a parameter on the media type

Steven Pemberton: Certainly some XHTML's get announced with a parameter on the media type

14:27:23 <ShaneM> scor: I dont think new media types are feasible.  The browsers might take years to support it, and people wont know that they need to use it.  It is also difficult to do on the server - especialy for static files.

Stéphane Corlosquet: I dont think new media types are feasible. The browsers might take years to support it, and people wont know that they need to use it. It is also difficult to do on the server - especialy for static files.

14:28:04 <ShaneM> ... in next drupal we need it to be as seamless as possible.  It cannot be required to change based upon whether RDFa is being sent out or not.

... in next drupal we need it to be as seamless as possible. It cannot be required to change based upon whether RDFa is being sent out or not.

14:28:27 <manu1> ack manu1

Manu Sporny: ack manu1

14:28:27 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to kick back issue to HTML WG?

Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to kick back issue to HTML WG?

14:28:28 <ShaneM> MS: so we shouldn't depend upon the mime type at all?

Manu Sporny: so we shouldn't depend upon the mime type at all?

14:28:31 <Steven>  Accept: application/xhtml+xml;

Steven Pemberton: Accept: application/xhtml+xml;

14:28:31 <Steven>         profile="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd"

Steven Pemberton: profile="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd"

14:28:32 <ShaneM> scor: right.

Stéphane Corlosquet: right.

14:28:57 <ShaneM> MS: should we just put it back on HTML5 working group?

Manu Sporny: should we just put it back on HTML5 working group?

14:29:12 <niklasl> q+

Niklas Lindström: q+

14:29:18 <manu1> ack niklasl

Manu Sporny: ack niklasl

14:29:45 <ShaneM> ... if HTML5 references the spec then we are okay  SVG already does, and other languages can do so as well.

... if HTML5 references the spec then we are okay SVG already does, and other languages can do so as well.

14:30:48 <Steven> Not just attributes, also elements

Steven Pemberton: Not just attributes, also elements

14:30:53 <Steven> XForms has no mediatype

Steven Pemberton: XForms has no mediatype

14:31:08 <ShaneM> NL: Yes, I agree.  Do we expect people to just use RDFa stand alone?  No.

Niklas Lindström: Yes, I agree. Do we expect people to just use RDFa stand alone? No.

14:31:16 <ShaneM> SM: no... but we permit it.

Shane McCarron: no... but we permit it.

14:31:29 <Steven> I agree, push back

Steven Pemberton: I agree, push back

14:31:32 <ShaneM> SM: And remember there are lots of other specs that introduce attributes outside of the context of a markup language.

Shane McCarron: And remember there are lots of other specs that introduce attributes outside of the context of a markup language.

14:31:43 <ShaneM> MS: So we should just push back to the TAG?

Manu Sporny: So we should just push back to the TAG?

14:31:48 <ShaneM> (general agreement)

(general agreement)

14:32:35 <manu1> PROPOSAL: RDFa is not a set of elements, but a set of attributes. Other W3C specs that define sets of XML attributes (e.g. xml:base, aria, spec, xml:id spec, XML namespaces spec, XLink, etc) do not define media types. RDFa falls into the same category as these specs, that is, it doesn't require a MIMEtype registration.

PROPOSED: RDFa is not a set of elements, but a set of attributes. Other W3C specs that define sets of XML attributes (e.g. xml:base, aria, spec, xml:id spec, XML namespaces spec, XLink, etc) do not define media types. RDFa falls into the same category as these specs, that is, it doesn't require a MIMEtype registration.

14:32:52 <bergie> looks good

Henri Bergius: looks good

14:33:26 <ShaneM> Steven: Not just attributes - elements are relevant as well.  It doesn't have a root element.  So it shouldn't have its own media type.

Steven Pemberton: Not just attributes - elements are relevant as well. It doesn't have a root element. So it shouldn't have its own media type.

14:33:27 <scor> what if several syntaxes are used in the same document (e.g. RDFa and microdata)? can a document define multiple MIME types?

Stéphane Corlosquet: what if several syntaxes are used in the same document (e.g. RDFa and microdata)? can a document define multiple MIME types?

14:33:40 <ShaneM> No - only one.

No - only one.

14:34:02 <scor> so that's another argument against defining MIME types for each of them

Stéphane Corlosquet: so that's another argument against defining MIME types for each of them

14:34:15 <scor> since we can't combine them

Stéphane Corlosquet: since we can't combine them

14:35:51 <ShaneM> SM: Dont forget that XHTML+RDFa IS a document type.  it should not have its own media type.

Shane McCarron: Dont forget that XHTML+RDFa IS a document type. it should not have its own media type.

14:36:32 <Steven> +1

Steven Pemberton: +1

14:36:57 <ShaneM> ... parameters on the media type are a reasonable way to do this.  profile="someURI someotherURI"

... parameters on the media type are a reasonable way to do this. profile="someURI someotherURI"

14:37:04 <Steven> q+

Steven Pemberton: q+

14:37:17 <ShaneM> ... profile should be able to take more than one value so a document can reference multiple sets of processing rules

... profile should be able to take more than one value so a document can reference multiple sets of processing rules

14:37:38 <manu1> ack Steven

Manu Sporny: ack Steven

14:38:02 <ShaneM> Steven: HTML5 and microdata is a great example.  There shouldn't be two media types for HTML5 and HTML5+microdata.

Steven Pemberton: HTML5 and microdata is a great example. There shouldn't be two media types for HTML5 and HTML5+microdata.

14:38:14 <ShaneM> ... so it isn't something that the working group needs to handle.

... so it isn't something that the working group needs to handle.

14:38:57 <ShaneM> IH:  No, the working group needs to update the media registration to allow for any additional parameters, not just microdata or RDFa.

Ivan Herman: No, the working group needs to update the media registration to allow for any additional parameters, not just microdata or RDFa.

14:39:32 <ShaneM> MS: I think this is a non issue.  No one is going to use this.  It is overly pedantic. Processors will grab documents and try to extract triples.  If they get some, great.  If not, also great.

Manu Sporny: I think this is a non issue. No one is going to use this. It is overly pedantic. Processors will grab documents and try to extract triples. If they get some, great. If not, also great.

14:40:17 <niklasl> .. as long as official validators (will) accept the attributes, there is no technical issue.

Niklas Lindström: .. as long as official validators (will) accept the attributes, there is no technical issue.

14:41:20 <ShaneM> IH: didn't the HTML5 working group remove @profile?

Ivan Herman: didn't the HTML5 working group remove @profile?

14:41:44 <Steven> q+

Steven Pemberton: q+

14:41:50 <Steven> q-

Steven Pemberton: q-

14:42:00 <manu1> http://dev.w3.org/html5/profiles/source/

Manu Sporny: http://dev.w3.org/html5/profiles/source/

14:43:24 <ShaneM> Look at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#major-differences-with-rdfa-syntax-1.0

Look at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#major-differences-with-rdfa-syntax-1.0

14:43:33 <ShaneM> MS: Push back on the tag first.

Manu Sporny: Push back on the tag first.

14:44:50 <manu1> PROPOSAL: RDFa Core 1.1 is a set of attributes. There are other specs that are just sets of attributes like xml:base, aria, xml:id, XML namespaces, XLink) and those do not define media types. RDFa Core 1.1 falls into the same category as these specs, that is, it doesn't require a Media Type registration.

PROPOSED: RDFa Core 1.1 is a set of attributes. There are other specs that are just sets of attributes like xml:base, aria, xml:id, XML namespaces, XLink) and those do not define media types. RDFa Core 1.1 falls into the same category as these specs, that is, it doesn't require a Media Type registration.

14:45:03 <manu1> +1

Manu Sporny: +1

14:45:06 <Steven> +1

Steven Pemberton: +1

14:45:07 <gkellogg> +1

Gregg Kellogg: +1

14:45:07 <bergie> +1

Henri Bergius: +1

14:45:08 <niklasl> +1

Niklas Lindström: +1

14:45:08 <ShaneM> Shane: +1

Shane McCarron: +1

14:45:09 <scor> +1

Stéphane Corlosquet: +1

14:45:11 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

14:45:15 <manu1> RESOLVED: RDFa Core 1.1 is a set of attributes. There are other specs that are just sets of attributes like xml:base, aria, xml:id, XML namespaces, XLink) and those do not define media types. RDFa Core 1.1 falls into the same category as these specs, that is, it doesn't require a Media Type registration.

RESOLVED: RDFa Core 1.1 is a set of attributes. There are other specs that are just sets of attributes like xml:base, aria, xml:id, XML namespaces, XLink) and those do not define media types. RDFa Core 1.1 falls into the same category as these specs, that is, it doesn't require a Media Type registration.

14:46:46 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The SVG Tiny 1.1 spec and the ODF spec already refers to the RDFa specification, therefore no action is necessary.

PROPOSED: The SVG Tiny 1.1 spec and the ODF spec already refers to the RDFa specification, therefore no action is necessary.

14:46:55 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

14:46:56 <manu1> +1

Manu Sporny: +1

14:46:57 <Steven> +1

Steven Pemberton: +1

14:46:58 <gkellogg> +1

Gregg Kellogg: +1

14:47:00 <ShaneM> Shane: +1

Shane McCarron: +1

14:47:06 <bergie> +1

Henri Bergius: +1

14:47:06 <scor> +1

Stéphane Corlosquet: +1

14:47:12 <manu1> RESOLVED: The SVG Tiny 1.1 spec and the ODF spec already refers to the RDFa specification, therefore no action is necessary.

RESOLVED: The SVG Tiny 1.1 spec and the ODF spec already refers to the RDFa specification, therefore no action is necessary.

14:48:34 <niklasl> (actually, it seems like it's SVG 1.2 Tiny which explicitly refers to RDFa)

Niklas Lindström: (actually, it seems like it's SVG 1.2 Tiny which explicitly refers to RDFa)

14:49:15 <niklasl> with that, +1

Niklas Lindström: with that, +1

14:49:27 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The text/xml, application/xml, text/html and application/xhtml+xml MIMETypes are not under the purview of this Working Group and therefore this WG cannot refer to the RDFa Core 1.1 or XHTML+RDFa or HTML+RDFa or Microdata specifications. The WG associated with each of those MIMETypes will need to add them to the associated specification.

PROPOSED: The text/xml, application/xml, text/html and application/xhtml+xml Media Types are not under the purview of this Working Group and therefore this WG cannot refer to the RDFa Core 1.1 or XHTML+RDFa or HTML+RDFa or Microdata specifications. The WG associated with each of those Media Types will need to add them to the associated specification.

14:49:42 <ShaneM> s/MIMETypes/Media Types/
14:49:46 <ShaneM> Shane: +1

Shane McCarron: +1

14:49:46 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

14:49:47 <gkellogg> +1

Gregg Kellogg: +1

14:49:47 <manu1> +1

Manu Sporny: +1

14:49:48 <Steven> +1

Steven Pemberton: +1

14:49:48 <bergie> +1

Henri Bergius: +1

14:49:49 <scor> +1

Stéphane Corlosquet: +1

14:49:50 <niklasl> +1

Niklas Lindström: +1

14:50:10 <manu1> RESOLVED: The text/xml, application/xml, text/html and application/xhtml+xml Media Types are not under the purview of this Working Group and therefore this WG cannot refer to the RDFa Core 1.1 or XHTML+RDFa or HTML+RDFa or Microdata specifications. The WG associated with each of those Media Types will need to add them to the associated specification.

RESOLVED: The text/xml, application/xml, text/html and application/xhtml+xml Media Types are not under the purview of this Working Group and therefore this WG cannot refer to the RDFa Core 1.1 or XHTML+RDFa or HTML+RDFa or Microdata specifications. The WG associated with each of those Media Types will need to add them to the associated specification.

14:50:47 <ShaneM> TOPIC: rel / rev values

4. rel / rev values

14:51:29 <ShaneM> We need a volunteer.  No one wants to do it.

We need a volunteer. No one wants to do it.

14:51:59 <ShaneM> We need to go through and remove things from default profile(s) that we don't want to handle any longer.  Semantics have changed for some values.

We need to go through and remove things from default profile(s) that we don't want to handle any longer. Semantics have changed for some values.

14:52:54 <Steven> ZAKIM, WHO IS NOISY?

Steven Pemberton: ZAKIM, WHO IS NOISY?

14:53:10 <Zakim> Steven, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: gkellogg (35%)

Zakim IRC Bot: Steven, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: gkellogg (35%)

14:53:13 <ShaneM> ACTION: ShaneM to review rel / rev values and find items that should be removed

ACTION: ShaneM to review rel / rev values and find items that should be removed

14:53:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-97 - Review rel / rev values and find items that should be removed [on Shane McCarron - due 2011-10-13].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-97 - Review rel / rev values and find items that should be removed [on Shane McCarron - due 2011-10-13].

14:53:57 <Steven> Shane++

Steven Pemberton: Shane++

14:53:57 <ivan> [[[

Ivan Herman: [[[

14:53:59 <ivan> Backwards compatibility with RDFa 1.0 is of great importance. That means, in general, that all triples that are produced via the October 2008 version of RDFa, should still be generated in the new version. For each new feature, if there is doubt or a perceived problem with respect to this, the guideline should be not to include the feature in the set of modifications. The two minor features the Working Group has identified and which may constitute possible exceptions

Ivan Herman: Backwards compatibility with RDFa 1.0 is of great importance. That means, in general, that all triples that are produced via the October 2008 version of RDFa, should still be generated in the new version. For each new feature, if there is doubt or a perceived problem with respect to this, the guideline should be not to include the feature in the set of modifications. The two minor features the Working Group has identified and which may constitute possible exceptions

14:53:59 <ivan> this rule, is the default XML Literal generation (see the proposal and the corresponding thread for details), and the list of predefined @rel/@rev values that automatically generate triples (these predefined values are under re-evaluation by the HTML community, and inconsistencies may occur if all RDF triples are generated).

Ivan Herman: this rule, is the default XML Literal generation (see the proposal and the corresponding thread for details), and the list of predefined @rel/@rev values that automatically generate triples (these predefined values are under re-evaluation by the HTML community, and inconsistencies may occur if all RDF triples are generated).

14:54:01 <ivan> ]]]

Ivan Herman: ]]]

14:55:32 <manu1> Topic: Default Profile language

5. Default Profile language

14:54:53 <gkellogg> What about initial evaluation context?

Gregg Kellogg: What about initial evaluation context?

14:55:29 <ShaneM> Proposal to use the term 'initial evaluation context'.

Proposal to use the term 'initial evaluation context'.

14:57:08 <ShaneM> SM: remove the section that describes how to specify default profiles.

Shane McCarron: remove the section that describes how to specify default profiles.

14:57:51 <gkellogg> didn't we want to be able to add terms in the future?

Gregg Kellogg: didn't we want to be able to add terms in the future?

14:58:27 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

14:58:49 <gkellogg> My implementation parses the profile docs to create constant definitions in the parser

Gregg Kellogg: My implementation parses the profile docs to create constant definitions in the parser

14:58:56 <ShaneM> MS: We can't just use the spec.  We need an external document.

Manu Sporny: We can't just use the spec. We need an external document.

14:59:18 <ShaneM> ... publishing cycle at the W3C is too long.  External document is used to maintain the data.

... publishing cycle at the W3C is too long. External document is used to maintain the data.

14:59:44 <manu1> ack ivan

Manu Sporny: ack ivan

14:59:59 <ShaneM> IH: use the different name, but keep the current mechanism.

Ivan Herman: use the different name, but keep the current mechanism.

15:00:17 <ShaneM> ... the mechanism provides the possibility to either hardcode or use caching and retrieve or whatever.

... the mechanism provides the possibility to either hardcode or use caching and retrieve or whatever.

15:00:22 <ShaneM> ... we don't want to impose that.

... we don't want to impose that.

15:01:01 <ShaneM> ... not in favor of hardcoding.

... not in favor of hardcoding.

15:01:04 <gkellogg> +1 to ivan

Gregg Kellogg: +1 to ivan

15:01:05 <ShaneM> SM: okay

Shane McCarron: okay

15:01:30 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Use the terminology 'initial evaluation context' to specify the initial list of terms and prefixes that should be used by a processor.

PROPOSED: Use the terminology 'initial evaluation context' to specify the initial list of terms and prefixes that should be used by a processor.

15:01:46 <ShaneM> IH: might need to change names of triple predicates.

Ivan Herman: might need to change names of triple predicates.

15:01:47 <manu1> +1

Manu Sporny: +1

15:01:48 <ShaneM> Shane: +1

Shane McCarron: +1

15:01:48 <niklasl> +1

Niklas Lindström: +1

15:01:48 <gkellogg> +1

Gregg Kellogg: +1

15:01:57 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

15:02:03 <Steven> +1

Steven Pemberton: +1

15:02:31 <manu1> RESOLVED: Use the terminology 'initial evaluation context' to specify the initial list of terms and prefixes that should be used by a processor.

RESOLVED: Use the terminology 'initial evaluation context' to specify the initial list of terms and prefixes that should be used by a processor.

15:04:13 <manu1> rrsagent, make logs public

Manu Sporny: rrsagent, make logs public

15:04:51 <Zakim> -ShaneM

Zakim IRC Bot: -ShaneM

15:04:55 <Zakim> -gkellogg

Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg

15:05:01 <Zakim> -scor

Zakim IRC Bot: -scor

15:05:05 <Zakim> -Steven

Zakim IRC Bot: -Steven



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#1) generated 2011-10-06 16:28:44 UTC by 'msporny', comments: 'Minor fixes.'