6 Dec 2005

Agenda, irc log


Ben Adida, Ralph Swick, Jeremy Carroll, Mark Birbeck


Mark: HTML WG was able to wrap up all its open issues at its most recent face-to-face

JJC's RDF/A implementation

<jeremy> implementation notes

-> JJC RDF/A implementation

Jeremy:I revised the rules from the old implementation and wrote code for CURIEs. This has some minimal testing. The rules are simpler and there is significantly less interaction between the rules. The current RDF/A spec describes rules more precedurally.

<jeremy> Rules file in implementation

<jeremy> <subject

<jeremy> rdf:about='my:resolve-uri-curie(ancestor::*[@about][1]/@about,ancestor::*[@about][1])'

<jeremy> rdf:nodeID='my:bnode-uri-curie(ancestor::*[@about][1]/@about)'

<jeremy> x:para='4.3.2'

<jeremy> a:match='[not(self::xhtml2:meta)][not(self::xhtml2:link)][not(@about)][ancestor::*[@about]]'

<jeremy> />

Mark: from the viewpoint of an HTML DOM, I had a mental model with a document containing lots of notes and <meta> and <link> get 'absorbed' into their parent

Ralph: the xml:base from ancestor containing about= probably warrants a test case -- I expect it will be a not uncommon bug

Ben: the about= should be resolved at the point it is expressed, not later when it is used

Mark: did you find the fit with xml:base and CURIEs to be easy to implement?

Jeremy: I tried to write a flexible implementation; I break the CURIE into prefix,localpart using some variables. Prefix resolution is currently done by namespace lookup but that's a module. I did not find any particular problems implementing CURIEs

<jeremy> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/implementation/base.xsl

<jeremy> has the CURIE-URI

Jeremy: regarding <head about='...'> edge case, I don't have a particular preference but it's wrong to leave it unspecified; the reification of a <meta rel=... rev=...> needs to be specified -- this is a corner case of multiple triples with the same reification id

<jeremy> <meta id="r" property="foo" rel="bar"><meta .....

(or use <link> in place of outer <meta>)

<jeremy> <#r> rdf:predicate <foo>. <#r> rdf:predicate <bar>

Mark: meta and link are now special; perhaps they should not permit rel and rev

Ben: we did not address in the spec the case of <meta id...> or <link id...>

<jeremy> <meta property="foo" rel="bar"><meta .....

<jeremy> _:a rdf:predicate <foo>. _: b rdf:predicate <bar>

Jeremy: without an id attribute you construct two distinct bnodes

<jeremy> <meta property="foo" rel="bar"><meta property="dc:creater" content="MB"/>

<jeremy> _:a rdf:predicate <foo>. _: b rdf:predicate <bar> . _:a dc:creator "MB". _:b dc:creator "MB" .

Jeremy: the inner <meta> makes the same assertion about both triples (property and rel) in the parent <meta>

Mark: given <span ...><meta> ...

Jeremy: in that case the meta would be about the span, not about the triples because meta and link are special in referring to their immediate parent. This is useful functionality though it is more implementation work. I am not sure the additional compactness of reification is worth adding to the implementation cost

Mark: if there is uncertainty about future consensus on reification, then whatever we specify now might become outdated

Jeremy: the Last Call document could specifically request feedback pro and con on the proposed specification

Ben: my approach was to express [as much as possible of] RDF and not make a judgement about goodness or badness of features

<jeremy> <meta id="r" property="foo" rel="bar"><meta .....

<jeremy> perhaps makes the triples

<jeremy> _:a rdf:predicate <foo>. _: b rdf:predicate <bar> .

<jeremy> and loses the #r

<Ralph> [it feels odd to me to be discarding the id in this example]

Ben: add this to the issues list?

Jeremey: it's really just a corner case in which the spec doesn't adequately say what to produce

ACTION: Jeremy followup with Mark on the question of multiple triples from nested meta and add to issues list

ACTION: Jeremy propose wording on reification

Jeremy: the question is not whether RDF/A supports reification -- it will -- but rather whether there is a compact representation for reification

ACTION: Jeremy followup on <head about=...> edge case

ACTION: Ben start separate mail threads on remaining discussion topics

Ralph: have we formally asked the WG for a consensus on the CURIE proposal?

Jeremy: I am willing to put that question to the WG

Ralph: perhaps proposing to publish the CURIE spec as a Working Draft would be a way to call this question. I may have to either abstain from that vote or represent that the Team does not have consensus

next meeting: 13 Dec


Summary of Action Items

[DONE] ACTION: Jeremy to have XSLT ready by Christmas [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/29-swbp-minutes.html#action01]

[NEW] ACTION: Ben start separate mail threads on remaining discussion topics
[NEW] ACTION: Jeremy followup on <head about=...> edge case
[NEW] ACTION: Jeremy followup with Mark on the question of multiple triples from nested meta and add to issues list
[NEW] ACTION: Jeremy propose wording on reification

[End of minutes]

$Revision: 1.1 $ of $Date: 2005/12/06 16:35:50 $