See also: IRC log, previous 2007-10-04
<mhausenblas> previous 2007-10-04
<Steven> ;-) you mean
<mhausenblas> scribenick: mhausenblas
<scribe> ACTION: Ben to set up a proper scribe schedule [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: [NEW] Ben to add status of various implementations on rdfa.info [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]
<Steven> http://rdfa.info/rdfa-implementations/
<scribe> ACTION: [NEW] Ben to bring non-prefixed @rel issue to email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] [DONE]
Ben: We need to sort this out -
wait for Mark
... @rel support for backwards compatibility
<scribe> ACTION: [NEW] Michael add Fabien's proposed tests to the test suite archive [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: [NEW] Michael add Ivan's proposed tests to the test suite [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action10] [DONE]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0078.html New Test Cases
Ben: Mark, we were just
discussing @rel issues
... should add default values or drop them?
Mark: Kind of taxonomy of useful values
Ben: As @property is a new attribute ...
Steven: @property replaces @name
Mark: @name is still there
... some interesting use cases came up recently
... wonder if we need a 1:1 correspondance
Ralph: Support Marks comment; we should discourage unprefixed usage for new written documents
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to say that @property is the new @name but we don't have syntax compatibility concerns that require us to back fit existing usage
<Steven> <meta name="dc.creator" property="dc:creator" content="Mark Birbeck"/>
Ben: So we should not have non-prefixed values for @property
Mark: Basically agree
... need to check for consistency
Ben: Resolve it via mailing list
<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Ben to look into Science Commons use case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/11-htmltf-minutes.html#action04] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Michael make sure to confirm a design for checking that the ASK SPARQL queries evaluate (yes/no) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]
Michael will write up a proposal how to mark it up in th manifest
<scribe> ACTION: [PENDING] Michael to create "Microformats done right -- unambiguous taxonomies via RDF" on the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/23-rdfa-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]
<Ralph> F2F discussion
Steven: All SWD participants were
very convinced
... and Mark's slides were not needed
Mark: Good vibes - very encouraging
Ben: Good work. Still, we need to continue to work hard
Michael: -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFa/ImplReport SWD action on RDFa Implementation
Steven: Depends on exit
criteria
... if we decide we need two implementations for exit from
CR< then we need two columns, one for each implementation,
with a tick for each test passed
Ralph: Will add examples to the Wiki
Steven: tick is important
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0078.html New Test Cases
<Ralph> scribenick: ralph
-- test 46
-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/Test0046 test 46
Michael: test 46 - 53 are all @instanceof with various combinations of other attributes
Ralph: find a different property
than foaf:knows so the semantics of the relationship between
the page and John Doe is correct
... e.g. foaf:depicts ?
Michael: probably;
<benadida> ACTION: Michael to find a more appropriate predicate than foaf:knows for TC46-53 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
<benadida> e.g. foaf:maker
Manu: foaf:maker ?
<Steven> dc:creator?
Ralph: this test is consisent with our decision, yes. I still question some details of the decision
Mark: this is the debate about @instanceof -- isn't that debate still open?
Ben: not still open, we've decided that @instanceof without @about applies to the object bnode
Mark: the debate is whether @instanceof applies to the subject or to the object
<ShaneM> Certainly in this: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070927/#s_rdfaindetail it says the issue is open.
Ralph: I think this was the decision, even if I disagree with it :)
<msporny> +1 for test case 46
Shane: the point of the note in the document is that the document is not clear on this decision
<mhausenblas> Ivan's comment
<mhausenblas> @instanceof
Ben: there may be an issue with
the way the rules are described
... but without looking at the processing rules, can we agree
or disagree that the proposed triples are what we want?
Mark: the DIV could create a
bnode _:y
... with _:y foaf:knows _:x
... and _:y rdf:type foaf:Person
Ben: @@
Mark: DIV with just @rel is unambiguous
Ralph: a useful interpretation would be (though in this case semantically incorrect) 0046.xhtml rdf:type foaf:Person
Ben: that interpretation would
violate all our rules about @instanceof
... gets confusing if you think about it as more than one
bnode
... but easier if there's just one bnode that is the chaining
element
Mark: too many special cases
going on
... the one I'm happy with is when @rel sits on its own
Ben: if @rel causes chaining, it has to identify the chaining subject
Mark: @rel traditionally applies
to the document, regardless of where it sits; i.e. in
traditional HTML @rel applies to the global document
... we've added the ability to specify the subject
... if @rel applies to the thing above it, or when there's
nothing above it, it gets confusing
Michael: @instanceof is syntactic sugar for @rel w/ @href
Ben: no, @instance of is really sugar for LINK with @rel ...
Ralph: consider test 50
Mark: I thought that this issue was connected to the issue of what to do with @about
<mhausenblas> Michael: in TC 50 there should be a bNode as subject IMHO
Ben: test 50 looks very wrong to me
Ralph: I agree that 46 and 50 are contradictory
Ben: test 50 needs a bnode
... it's always the same bnode
... and the bnode is the object of the outer statement
Mark: and if there were an @about
it would give a name to the bnode
... and if you add @rel, what's changed?
Ben: @instanceof inherits @about
Mark: @instanceof still belongs in the list of predicates; the predicate happens to be rdf:type
<benadida> <div resource="#foo" instanceof="foo:bar">
<benadida> </div>
Mark: that example is a grey area in my model
Ben: I thought we'd agreed that this was <#foo> rdf:type <foo:bar>
Mark: end up using @about and @resource interchangeably
<benadida> <div href="#foo" instanceo="foo:bar"></div>
Mark: I really don't like that @href is chaining
Ralph: tests 46 - 53 are
inconsistent
... they also have typos; e.g. the URI in 50 is clearly not
mentioned anywhere
... suggest that each of us look at 46 - 53 and propose what we
think are the fixes to the inconsistencies
<scribe> ACTION: All look at tests 46 - 53 and write what you believe the correct triples are [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]
<benadida> schedule -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFa#RDFa_schedule
<scribe> scribenick: mhausenblas
Ben: 15 Nov is the strict
deadline
... for the syntax doc
Steven: Out ASAP
Shane: Need to address some issues from SWD F2F
Mark: True but no critical ones
<Steven> 31 Oct is the drop dead date for this draft
Ben: What is the next possible date for new syntax?
Mark: 2007-10-16
Steven: Will take care for publication (from Shane)
Shane: I'll start today and work all night :)
<ShaneM> 'cause I have no life.
<Ralph> Shane: I will signal Steven when the doc is ready to publish
<Steven> XHTML2 WG ratified the decision to publish
Ben: Primer in upcoming week
Ralph: Will support Ben
Ben: Need to work hard till the end of the year!
<Ralph> Ben: I will signal Ralph when the Primer is ready to publish
Ben: I'll be on vacation from 18-24 Oct
<Ralph> Regrets for 25 Oct
<Ralph> Ben: I cannot chair on the 25th
<Ralph> Michael: regrets for 25 Oct
Michael: I'm on travel on 25th
<Ralph> Steven: at risk for 18 Oct
Steven: 18th is on risk
Ben: Nice work Mark and Shane