Meeting Record

There are some format problems with the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.

It may be helpful to

Scribe problem: the name 'msporny' does not match any of the 3 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, msporny; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 15 minutes ←

Scribe problem: the name 'Manu_Sporny' does not match any of the 0 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names:

Scribe problem: the name 'Ivan_Herman' does not match any of the 0 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names:

Scribe problem: the name 'Mark_Birbeck' does not match any of the 0 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names:

Scribe problem: the name 'Ben_Adida' does not match any of the 0 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names:

Scribe problem: the name 'Shane_McCarron' does not match any of the 0 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names:

Scribe problem: the name 'Steven_Pemberton' does not match any of the 0 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names:

Scribe problem: the name 'Ben Adida' does not match any of the 6 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Unknown Manu_Sporny Unknown Ivan_Herman Unknown Mark_Birbeck Unknown Ben_Adida Unknown Shane_McCarron Unknown Steven_Pemberton

Scribe problem: the name 'msporny' does not match any of the 9 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Unknown Manu_Sporny Unknown Ivan_Herman Unknown Mark_Birbeck Unknown Ben_Adida Unknown Shane_McCarron Unknown Steven_Pemberton Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown Ivan_Herman: Manu, you are not supposed to be here, or have I misunderstood your mail? ←

Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), ivan1 ←

Scribe problem: the name 'ShaneM' does not match any of the 9 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Unknown Manu_Sporny Unknown Ivan_Herman Unknown Mark_Birbeck Unknown Ben_Adida Unknown Shane_McCarron Unknown Steven_Pemberton Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Scribe problem: the name 'markbirbeck' does not match any of the 9 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Unknown Manu_Sporny Unknown Ivan_Herman Unknown Mark_Birbeck Unknown Ben_Adida Unknown Shane_McCarron Unknown Steven_Pemberton Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see [IPcaller] (muted), McCarron, ivan1, markbirbeck ←

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Steven, ShaneM, RRSAgent, Zakim, msporny, ivan1, markbirbeck ←

Scribe problem: the name 'benadida' does not match any of the 9 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Unknown Manu_Sporny Unknown Ivan_Herman Unknown Mark_Birbeck Unknown Ben_Adida Unknown Shane_McCarron Unknown Steven_Pemberton Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose McCarron ←

Scribe problem: the name 'McCarron' does not match any of the 9 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Unknown Manu_Sporny Unknown Ivan_Herman Unknown Mark_Birbeck Unknown Ben_Adida Unknown Shane_McCarron Unknown Steven_Pemberton Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see [IPcaller] (muted), ShaneM, ivan1, markbirbeck, Steven, Ben_Adida ←

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see benadida, Steven, ShaneM, RRSAgent, Zakim, msporny, ivan1, markbirbeck ←

ACTION: Manu to convert WG Charter page to W3C charter format [recorded in ACTION-08]">http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-08] ←

ACTION: Mark to author URIs in @about, @rel, @rev, @typeof and @datatype spec text [recorded in ACTION-09]">http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-09] ←

Unknown 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. ←

Unknown markbirbeck: original proposal said we should advise people to use safe curies. ←

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? ←

Steven says this is not a problem since if I meant it to be a prefix, it will always remain a prefix ←

Unknown 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. ←

Unknown benadida: As long as the document doesnt change meaning if the document is not edited later, it is not an issue ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: the chances for something like this to occur are non-zero, but it is so rare as to be uninteresting ←

Unknown 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 ←

Unknown msporny: I don't think we should ever depend on people correctly using Safe CURIEs ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: 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 ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: if we go one step further, we could have relative URIs in @typeof ←

Unknown msporny: I don't know if we should have relative URIs in @property - I realize the use case, but it's very uncommon. ←

Unknown msporny: I think the reason to forbid it is because it overcomplicates RDF. ←

Unknown benadida: RDF/XML is an example of having many ways to write the same thing, and this makes it complicated to learn. ←

Unknown benadida: if we have CURIEs and SafeCURIEs in the same datatype this is complicated ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: thinks that we have inconsistency in our rules today between @rel and @rev vs. @about and @resource ←

Unknown msporny: That said, I would be in favor of playing down Safe CURIEs... ←

Unknown markbirbeck: points out that we could downplay SafeCURIEs if we wanted too ←

Unknown 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. ←

Unknown benadida: if we are going this route, we should downplay the importance of SafeCURIEs ←

Unknown benadida: Wants to wait to see Mark's proposed spec text before making a decision ←

Unknown msporny: we might want to revisit this with the TAG based on our new findings. ←

Unknown ShaneM: points out that the reason we have SafeCURIEs is that the TAG said we cannot put CURIEs and URIs in the same attribute ←

Unknown ShaneM: the TAG didn't want the possibility for confusion on the part of humans, not software. ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: for many people this is a stumbling block (using full URIs instead of CURIEs) ←

Unknown benadida: proposes we wait for Mark's wording on this (but admits Ben is the hold up!) ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: 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 ←

Unknown markbirbeck: we can consider this as an RDF interpretation of existing markup ←

Unknown Steven_Pemberton: 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 ←

Unknown msporny: We're going to get severe push-back from HTML WG if we change @href and @src ←

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 ←

Unknown benadida: But the browsers would not do it right... so page authors would notice immediately that their links didn't work ←

Unknown ShaneM: at least if there is a SafeCURIE in @resource I would not be confused into thinking it was a URI. ←

Unknown 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! ←

Unknown markbirbeck: perhaps we should cross this bridge when we come to it. ←

Unknown 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. ←

Unknown Steven_Pemberton: The issue isn't that we can say "we won't apply this to @href and @src" but that might not be compelling ←

Unknown benadida: I dont see browser manufacturers implementing interpretation of CURIEs in @href and @src ←

Unknown msporny: I also think that the danger that Steven has outlined does exist... ←

Unknown msporny: If there is a chance of surprising somebody with this change, I think it would be best to point it out. ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: 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. ←

Unknown ShaneM: I personally would object to a change that permits CURIEs in places where we only permits SafeCURIEs ←

ACTION: Manu to ask somebody to draft errata text, clarifying that prefixes cannot be '_' character [recorded in ACTION-10]">http://www.w3.org/2009/11/12-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-10] ←

ACTION: Ben to finish authoring RDFa WG charter. [recorded in ACTION-07]">http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-07] ←

ACTION: Manu to aggressively push review of test cases via mailing list [recorded in ACTION-08]">http://www.w3.org/2009/10/29-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-08] ←

ACTION: Manu to try and find other interested parties in RDFa WG. [recorded in ACTION-08]">http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-08] ←

ACTION: Shane to re-draft XMLLiteral errata text [recorded in ACTION-04]">http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-04] ←

Unknown ShaneM: I have never seen a spec where we said "MUST NOT" to a spec author ←

Unknown markbirbeck: I have use-cases for redefining '_', but they're a little esoteric. ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: I made some edits and initiated some discussion within the W3C (management team etc.) ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: for the time being it seems fine. Mike Smith suggested we make the Javascript API a higher priority. ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: If everything goes well this week or monday we will let the AC know we are planning to move ahead with this charter. ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: 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 ←

ACTION: Someone let Ivan know what Open Document Format reference to use in the charter ←

Unknown Steven_Pemberton: notes that we list coordination with external groups when they are outside of W3C. ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: pushed out milestones by a month because it assumed we would start in January, and that was not going to happen ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: we could stretch the deliverables out to make it easier. ←

Unknown benadida: the draft plans for slack time by having the schedule tight, but has the end of the charter out a little bit ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: we can extend the charter if we need to when deadlines are missed. dont' need to build in slack in this way. ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: 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. ←

Unknown Steven_Pemberton: 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. ←

Unknown Steven_Pemberton: Suggests we say we will produce a cookbook or produce standard vocabularies ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: vocabularies is not an RDFa issue. it is a semweb issue. this group should not pick it up. ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: 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. ←

Unknown Steven_Pemberton: I think a cookbook / examples is just fine and will help address their problem. ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: RDFa is a serialization syntax - vocab to use is a general sem web issue. ←

Scribe problem: the name 're' does not match any of the 9 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Unknown Manu_Sporny Unknown Ivan_Herman Unknown Mark_Birbeck Unknown Ben_Adida Unknown Shane_McCarron Unknown Steven_Pemberton Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown benadida: understands w3c is not in the software implementation business. However, when we started building prototypes of RDFa things really moved ahead. ←

Unknown benadida: if we shouldn't put them in the charter that's one thing. but we should still prototype to ensure that things work! ←

Unknown 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. ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: +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. ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: 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. ←

Unknown benadida: feels there should be implementation work, but if there is no room for it in the charter so be it ←

Unknown 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 ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: 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 ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: 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. ←

Unknown Ivan_Herman: 'I am not in the business of trying to rule the world'. ←

ACTION: Ivan to updated charter remove dojo/jquery specifics, add community building on wiki paragraph, and stretch timeline. ←

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were ivan1, +0208761aaaa, markbirbeck, Steven, Ben_Adida, ShaneM, msporny ←

RDF in XHTML Task Force

Minutes of 19 November 2009

1. Test Cases

2. Action Items

3. Working Group Charter