W3C

RDFa

26 Jul 2007

Agenda, previous 2007-07-19

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Ben Adida, Ralph Swick, Mark Birbeck
Regrets
Steven Pemberton, Shane McCarron, Michael Hausenblas
Chair
Ben
Scribe
Ben, Ralph

Contents


<scribe> post-meeting note:
ACTION: MichaelH to put together test cases for @resource @href on same element [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] [DONE]
-- see mail from Michael

 <markbirbeck> it will be a low turnout today!!

Ben: none of these are resolutions, but we have agreement that we move forward with implementations and test cases in order to resolve the remaining issues.

for now, we'll go with @instanceof

<benadida> span resource="#foo">

<benadida> </span>

Ben: we will try out striping where @resource, @href, and the bnode on a @rel or @rev becomes the subject of contained elements

<markbirbeck> for the purposes of explaining this to 'novices', we used to call this 'chaining'.

<benadida> <div id="foo" instanceof="foaf:Person">

<markbirbeck> (Because it felt less RDF-like.)

<benadida> <#foo> rdf:type foaf:Person .

<benadida> <div id="foo" rel="p" resource="o">

<markbirbeck> <a rel="license" href="http://cc....">license</a>

<inserted> Scribenick: ralphs

Mark: we're leveraging this <a href=...> example

<markbirbeck> <a id="x" rel="license" href="http://cc....">license</a>

<markbirbeck> Don't want that to change the subject of the triple.

Ben: right, adding @id to A didn't change the interpretation
... the only time @id would matter is when neither @href or @resource appear in the element

<benadida> <div rel="foo:bar">

<benadida> <div id="foo">

Ben: without @href or @resource, @id names the bnode subject [of triples from child elements]

<benadida> <link rel="foo:bar" href="">

<benadida> </div>

Mark: current syntax draft has mostly removed references to @id and the remaining reference is mostly wrong

Ben: @id was used before, as in the <div id='foo'> case, to give the name '#foo' to the subject
... I may be misremembering, though

Mark: but there was a reason we removed it

Ralph: we had a long discussion of the potential confusion between the name of an HTML markup fragment and the name of some real-world resource

Ben: @rel and @rev cause chaining. @instanceof may also cause chaining.

Mark: @instanceof is special because it's choosing a different subject from <div id=>

<kwijibo> hi - there's a typo on http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/#o266637520

<kwijibo> that section keeps referring to subject resolution section 4.3 - which is the object resolution section

<RalphS> hi, kwijibo -- we're in a telecon at the moment, so a quick reply to you here might not appear

<kwijibo> np - just thought I'd mention it

<markbirbeck> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/rdf-a.html

Mark: I think it is incorrect to use @id to set the subject of child statement is wrong in all contexts

Ben: my understanding when working on http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/ was that we were moving away from @xml:id and moving to @id

<benadida> <div id="foo" instanceof="foo:Bar">

<benadida> <#foo> rdf:type foo:Bar .

Ben: is #foo the subject of a triple?

<benadida> <div about="#bar" rel="s" id="foo" instanceof="t">

<benadida> <#bar> s ? .

<benadida> ? rdf:type t .

<benadida> ? = _:div0

<benadida> ? = "#foo"

Ben: I think we agree that the object has rdf:type t.

<benadida> which one is it?

<markbirbeck> I agree that Ben has captured this correctly, and I believe that the subject of 'chained' statements should be a bnode.

<markbirbeck> <#bar> s [ rdf:type t ] .

<benadida> I think it should be:

<benadida> <#bar> s <#foo> .

<benadida> <#foo> rdf:type t .

Ralph: I never expected @id to behave the way Ben just wrote

<markbirbeck> (In the last draft that myself and Steven did, we had @nodeID to achieve this. :)

<markbirbeck> No-one liked it... ;)

<benadida> <div about="s" rel="p" resource="o">

<benadida> <span property="foo:bar">Foo!</span>

<benadida> </div>

<benadida> s p o .

<benadida> o foo:bar "Foo!" .

<markbirbeck> It's not that I saw utility in a recent email...I'm seeing that we might be able to *resurrect* this old technique.

<markbirbeck> I think the reason is that if we put link and meta inside the div, we wanted it to refer to @about.

<markbirbeck> It used to be a shorthand for:

Ben: my reasoning was that without without the @resource, we agreed that the object of @rel='p' is a bnode and that bnode is the subject of the child statements
... so with @resource, we just give the bnode a name

<markbirbeck> <div about="s" foo:bar="Foo!" ....

<markbirbeck> <meta property="foo:bar">Foo!</meta>

<RalphS> [I've searched http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/ for examples of @id and @rel on the same element and the only one I find also has @about which clearly seems to me to support Mark's interpretation]

Mark: some of the [shorthand] features included in old proposals have been dropped, I was wondering if we might eventually want to bring some of them back

Ben: I'm seeing more deployed examples that rely on bnode features and those should keep the interpretation if @href is added

<markbirbeck> This:

<markbirbeck> <div about="#bar" rel="s" id="foo" instanceof="t">

<markbirbeck> compared to:

<markbirbeck> <div about="#bar" rel="s" resource="foo" instanceof="t">

<markbirbeck> In other words, the use-case that we want from having @id 'name' the bnode could be achieved by using @resource.

<benadida> <div id="foo" instanceof="t">

<benadida> _:div0 rdf:type t

Ben: it seems for consistency that in this @id @instanceof case that the subject of rdf:type is a bnode
... do we agree that @instanceof causes chaining?

Mark: it would seem that it needs to do so

<benadida> <div id="foo" instanceof="t" rel="rdf:item">

Mark: what is the minimum markup needed to generate a triple?
... thinking about the way people understand microformats, there are special markup triggers; e.g. class="vEvent"
... so it should not be a problem for people to also learn that @instanceof is a trigger for interpretations of the child properties

Ben: we haven't made any new resolutions in this telecon, as we're not critical mass

ACTION: Ben writeup a summary of this discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/26-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]

Ben: is this a good time for Mark and Shane to start work on the new syntax document?

Mark: yeah, I think so

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Ben writeup a summary of this discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/26-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]

[PENDING]
ACTION: Ben to sum up @href/@resource everywhere proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/12-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben to look into Science Commons use case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/11-htmltf-minutes.html#action04]
[PENDING] 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]
[PENDING] ACTION: MarkB to work rdf:label back into RDFa syntax when using @content after October [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]

[DONE] ACTION: MichaelH to put together test cases for @resource @href on same element [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/19-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
 
[POSTPONED] 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]

 
[End of minutes]

Change Log:

$Log: 26-rdfa-minutes.html,v $
Revision 1.7  2007/07/26 19:50:04  swick
Add visible changelog


Thu Jul 26 19:42:42 2007 UTC swick
Add missing regrets, mark Michael's action done


Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/07/26 19:50:04 $