14:52:35 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 14:52:35 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-rdfa-irc 14:52:39 Meeting: RDFa 14:52:44 zakim, this will be rdfa 14:52:44 ok, RalphS; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes 14:52:50 rrsagent, please make record public 14:59:24 SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started 14:59:31 + +043316876aaaa 14:59:42 Agenda: name: Smith, MacKenzie 14:59:42 email: kenzie@MIT.EDU 14:59:52 oops, strike that 14:59:54 lol 14:59:55 Zakim, aaaa is me 14:59:55 +mhausenblas; got it 15:00:29 -> http://www.w3.org/2007/07/12-rdfa-minutes previous 2007-07-12 15:01:18 +Ralph 15:01:29 benadida has joined #rdfa 15:01:55 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jul/0157.html 15:02:23 +Ben 15:02:37 zakim, dial steven-617 15:02:37 ok, Steven; the call is being made 15:02:39 +Steven 15:02:39 scribe: Steven 15:04:06 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/users/14 15:04:19 Simone has joined #rdfa 15:04:42 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jul/0157.html 15:04:48 http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/actions/1 15:05:52 zakim, who is on the call? 15:05:52 On the phone I see mhausenblas, Ralph, Ben, Steven 15:06:58 ACTION: Ben/Ralph to figure out the RDFa-GRDDL-profile URI (at w3.org) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/14-rdfa-minutes.html#action15] 15:07:02 -- done 15:07:06 Topic: Action items 15:07:54 Ralph: I believe my request for http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2007Jun/0161.html will be approved 15:08:03 +[IPcaller] 15:08:16 zakim, code? 15:08:16 the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck 15:08:24 Zakim, IPcaller is me 15:08:24 +Simone; got it 15:08:49 +??P24 15:08:52 zakim, i am ? 15:08:52 +markbirbeck; got it 15:09:14 [NEW] ACTION: Ben to sum up @href/@resource everywhere proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/12-rdfa-minutes.html#action10] 15:09:14 15:09:20 -- done 15:10:07 [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to look into Science Commons use case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/11-htmltf-minutes.html#action04] 15:10:17 -- Continues 15:10:30 ACTION: Ben/Ralph to figure out the RDFa-GRDDL-profile URI (at w3.org) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/14-rdfa-minutes.html#action15] 15:10:33 -- done 15:10:49 ACTION: Elias to send email to list with use case from IBM [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/04-htmltf-minutes.html#action10] 15:10:56 -- Continues 15:11:07 ACTION: Mark get input from Joost on @HREF everywhere [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/21-rdfa-minutes.html#action14] 15:11:10 -- done 15:12:03 ACTION: MarkB to work rdf:label back into RDFa syntax when using @content [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/19-rdfa-minutes.html#action25] 15:13:03 -- postponed 15:13:55 ACTION: MarkB to work rdf:label back into RDFa syntax when using @content after October 15:14:09 -- continues 15:14:49 opic: @resource and @hrefon same element 15:14:53 q+ to ask on @resource precedence ... 15:14:57 s/hrefon/href on/ 15:15:05 Ben: What happens? 15:15:23 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jul/0110.html 15:15:58 -> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Jun/0022.html 15:16:38 Mh: How do you decide when something is dereferenceable? 15:16:59 Ben: URI vs URN? 15:17:21 MH: But with http: you don't know if a URI is dereferencable until youtry 15:17:42 s/youtry/you try/ 15:17:52 Ben: Example? 15:18:25 MH: [scribe misses] 15:18:58 Ben: No, the idea of @resource in this proposal is to override href in the same way that @content overrides the real content 15:19:22 ... @resource always overrides @href for the semantic purpose 15:20:04 Bne: Any objections? 15:20:10 Steven: Sounds mostly harmless 15:20:38 Mark: In the case of @content we are thinking of the content providing the rdf:label 15:20:48 ... in this case we could use the href in a similar way 15:21:17 ... in any case the href shouldn't generate a new version of the same triple 15:21:34 q+ to propose an action to make a test case 15:21:44 Ben: Need more time? 15:21:54 Steven: Well I do, but I understand we are under time pressure 15:21:56 mhausenblas, you wanted to ask on @resource precedence ... 15:22:46 RalphS, you wanted to propose an action to make a test case 15:22:55 ACTION: MichaelH to put together test cases for @resource @href on same element 15:23:22 Steven: I suppose my only problem is that RDFa is getting more and more complicated, while it started off so simple 15:24:33 Ben: I think the fact that the clickable href may not be the semantic one is a good use case 15:24:47 .. don't you think the similarity to @content convincing? 15:25:07 Steven: I have many times needed @content, but never felt the need for @resoruce 15:25:12 q+ to say that we may not need to justify a use case 15:27:09 Simone: RDFa must remain simple to allow simple implementations. 15:27:13 Simone: [muffled] 15:27:45 Ben: Yes, but we mustn't be *too* simple 15:27:52 ... it is a question of balance 15:28:22 ... href should be mentioned iin the primer in the main section and @resource should be in the advanced section 15:28:41 Simone: I think we may remain simple, actually people uses Microformats and not other, as You said Ben, we must found a Good balance for simplicity ;) 15:29:29 Ralph: I vote for keeping the primer simple, but I don't think we need a use case to justify this feature. 15:31:08 ... in the primer 15:31:15 ... but we do need it in the spec 15:32:11 Ralph: for interoperability we need to specify the behavior when both attributes are used in the same element 15:33:42 Steven: I'm worried that RDFa, which used to be describable in a paragraph is getting too complicated 15:34:19 ... I haven't been convinced of the utility of @resoruce over just @href 15:35:03 http://www.w3.org/2007/07/12-rdfa-minutes#item02 15:37:01 Mark: Well, this is standard rdf stuff, why do you think it is OK to have an href to a non-dereferencable URI? 15:37:19 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jul/0110.html [RDFa] ISSUE-34: partial resolution to @href everywhere 15:37:36 Steven: I don't agree that it is so cut and dried that there is such a division 15:37:39 +q 15:37:48 RalphS, you wanted to say that we may not need to justify a use case 15:37:50 Mark: Well, is something an information resource or not? 15:37:56 ... that is a good distinction 15:38:02 q+ 15:38:15 ... otherwise you can't talk about web pages, make statements about webpages 15:38:42 Ben: We have another huge issue to discuss, so we are in a time bind here 15:39:04 ... I have to ask if you can live with this 15:39:12 ... especially since you are going on vacation 15:43:07 Steven: I hadn't taken the discussion last week as a resolution of the @resource issue 15:43:31 MH: Well, if you don't want to use @resource you don't have to use it 15:43:47 ... it doesn't make the language more complicated 15:43:51 q+ 15:44:24 Ben: Well as an author, but not as a consumer 15:45:41 Ralph: We are concerned that @href should have effect outside of RDFa, and so is unsafe for us to rely on presentational behaviours, so I supported the addition of @resource 15:46:22 ... I don't agree with Mark's interpretation about different types of URIs being approriate or not for the two attributes 15:46:42 ... I think we need @resource because of href legacy 15:47:04 ... I agree about avoiding complexity 15:48:34 Steven: looking at the messages in the thread about introducing @href and @resource together, I was shocked at the complexity of the additional rules 15:48:54 ... by slow accretion we've increased the complexity 15:49:13 ... I have a feeling of uneasiness about the addition of new rules 15:49:56 Ben: the additional rules had to do with the next issue, considering striping, not so much this one 15:51:26 q+ to ask Steven about the scope of worry 15:51:43 Mark: But I haven't heard a good reason for why you think it is OK to put a URN in an href 15:51:52 Steven: But I don'; think that that is wrong 15:52:04 ... a browser could dereference such a thing 15:52:12 ... even if current browsers don't 15:52:20 ... I can imagine ways it could be done 15:52:53 Mark: But the current practice for href is that it points at a dereferencable thing 15:53:29 Ralph: I didn't want this argument today 15:53:43 ... but I don't think we need to differentiate between two sorts of URI 15:54:13 Zakim, ack me 15:54:13 mhausenblas, you wanted to ask Steven about the scope of worry 15:54:14 I see RalphS, Steven on the speaker queue 15:54:38 MH: Steven, are you worried about complecity for authors or implementors? 15:54:48 Steven: Both, but mostly authors 15:55:24 Ralph: doesn't do very much useful in today's browsers but it's not improper. 15:55:31 Ben: Even if Mark is wrong, the risk is small 15:55:59 ... in the future we could delete the feature if we don't need it 15:56:00 Ralph...it creates a blue link in today's browsers. :) 15:56:35 Ralph: I'd rather people use href, but I think there is a need for resource 15:57:23 Ben: The reason we think rdfa is better is because we have thought through the edge cases 15:57:31 ... I hope you can live with this Steven 15:57:55 ... I agree that it is bigger than it was, but that's because there is a lot of interest from other people 15:58:24 Steven: I am willing to live with @resource 15:58:33 Steven: I am willing to say I can live with it, in order to move forward 15:58:40 (I said the same about @class by the way) 15:58:56 RESOLUTION: @href and @resource everywhere 15:59:09 ... and that @resource overrides @href as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jul/0110.html 15:59:20 RESOLUTION: @resource overrides @href as per Ben's propoal 15:59:28 +1 15:59:48 I can live with this too 15:59:49 Ben: Steven's worries noted 16:00:04 ... I had to live with nbot using @class, so I know how you feel 16:00:34 s/nbot/not/ 16:01:01 [telecon extended +15 mins] 16:01:08 Topic: interaction of @instanceof, @about, and @rel 16:01:20 Ben: Whatever @instanceof is called 16:01:43 Ben: instanceof represents rdf:type 16:01:56

16:03:06 <#bar> foaf:knows _:div0 16:03:14 Ben: Without the instanceof here, it would mean the triple above 16:03:32 ... but what does instanceof apply to? bar or bnode 16:03:35 ... I think bnode 16:04:20 Mark: It feels like it should apply to the @about 16:04:36

16:05:11 q+ to say if intuition doesn't match the specification we're creating a long-term problem for ourselves 16:05:21 q- 16:05:53 MArk: It would allow you to build up by adding more people to who you know 16:05:57 q+ to ask what happens with additional id? 16:06:01 \s/MS/Ma/ 16:06:06 Ben: So you agree? 16:06:08 Mark: Yes 16:06:15 mhausenblas, you wanted to ask what happens with additional id? 16:06:20 MH: What about if there is an id? 16:06:24 Ben: Not so fast 16:06:30 q+ when we get to @id 16:06:32 ack me 16:06:36 RalphS, you wanted to say if intuition doesn't match the specification we're creating a long-term problem for ourselves 16:06:43 q+ 16:07:28 Ralph: The intuition of people coming fresh to this is important, and they are likely to assume the subject in this case 16:08:01 ... we shouldn't try to justify a non-intuitive interpretation 16:08:20 Mark: If you add it progressively, I think it makes sense 16:08:38 ... maybe @about is going to be less common than we have thought 16:09:45 ... you could rewrite lots of examples differently, so that href/resource would be more likely 16:09:58 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:09:58 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-rdfa-minutes.html mhausenblas 16:10:16 Ben: The complication is that in the past we have been annotating existing content 16:11:21 ... [scribe doesn't understand] 16:12:09 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:12:29 Mark: You mean you think people will use href for the subject a lot 16:12:34 Ben: I can't say for sure 16:12:40 ... but may be 16:12:56 ... I think striping will happen in RDFa 16:13:07 ... we do need a shorthand for rdf:type 16:13:47 ... there is a necessar level of complexity 16:13:52 foo 16:13:53 ... we do need @about 16:14:11 16:14:15 16:14:16 16:14:41

16:14:49 Ralph: Does the right thing happen if you use img src= 16:14:57 s/=/= ?/ 16:15:12 Ben: Yes 16:15:32 Mark: You mean if the src has /photo ? 16:15:42 ... then you would need rev 16:15:46 q+ 16:16:00 Ralph: Then I think this is unintuitive 16:16:30 Ben: There might be complex rules for whacky use, but best practice will always be easy 16:17:10 Mark: We have to resolve what happens if @resource and @src coexist on an element 16:18:07 Ralph: I need to reread the thread 16:18:32 Ralph: I'm concerned about the intuition regarding