See also: IRC log, previous 2008-03-06
<mhausenblas> btw, people, did I tell you
about irs?
http://143.224.254.32/irs/
kinda RDFa generator for linked-data
<Ralph> "results in XHTML+RDFa ..." ! :)
<Steven> and on the wiki if I'm not mistaken
Ben: LC ends next Friday
... if the issues are not fixed, we might need to extend LC period
Ralph: There is nothing on the table to make us extend it, however
<Steven> LC period is the time that people can send comments; not the time we need to resolve the issues
-> 06-rdfa-minutes#ActionSummary
<Steven> we need to resolve all issues before going to CR
Shane: All LC comments in tracker?
Ben: up to last three days: yes
<Steven> RDFa_schedule
Steven: Schedule correct? Doesn't list CR?
ACTION: Ben to update RDFa schedule to include CR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
ACTION: [NEW] Ben to followup with Johannes on his satisfaction with issue 88 resolution [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]
ACTION: [NEW] Mark to summarize issue 97 and 3 options for XMLLiteral to mailing list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] [DONE]
ACTION: [NEW] Mark update editor's draft with issue 89 resolution [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] [DONE]
ACTION: [NEW] Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: [PENDING] Ben followup with Fabien on getting his RDFa GRDDL transform transferred to W3C [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: [PENDING] Ben to add status of various implementations on rdfa.info [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action06] [WITHDRAWN]
Ben: Wiki FUP
ACTION: [PENDING] Ben to email mailing list to think about last substantive issue on tracker: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/6 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/07-rdfa-minutes.html#action07] [DONE]
Ben: related to ISSUE 97
ACTION: [PENDING] Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
ACTION: [PENDING] Manu write a response to Christian Hoertnagl for issue 7 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/21-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]
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] [WITHDRAWN]
ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
Ralph: Heads-up - conversation with Norm
Walsh
... TAG may discuss the FYN issue
<Ralph> issue 28 Follow your nose
Shane: I proposed a solution (a SHOULD ?)
<Ralph> Re: RDFa test case #1 missing @profile? [Shane 2008-03-03]
Ralph: TAG might have objections if not a MUST
Mark: I disagree; there seems to be some sympathy to being flexible, amongst some TAG members (after reading a lot of minutes)
Michael: IMHO the TAG has a clear position on that as well (cf. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments#UsingRDFa )
<Ralph> Re: Best Practices Issue: RDF Format Discovery [Ben 2008-02-06]
Shane: doc, UA, and processing conformance
... in the Syntax
Steven: Validating issues, as well - it is up to consumer to decide
<msporny> +1 to Mark's plea to move on to other issues.
Mark: We'll see and we are properly prepared with arguments
<ShaneM> Editors draft updated at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080313/
-> interpretation of TC results - now implemented [Michael 2008-03-11]
Michael: RDFa TC results; Manu to integrate the generalised EARL generator for the RDFa IR
ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
Ben: JS version on the way
-> issue-90
Ben: adding "top" and "first" to reserved values ?
Steven: XHTML2 has done it, I believe
Shane seconds
Ben: Propose to resolve XHTML2 decision
<benadida> PROPOSE to accept XHTML2 WG decision on reserved keywords
<mhausenblas> +1
<msporny> +1
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-90
-> issue-91
<msporny> +1 to kill ISSUE 91 paragraph per Mark's argument.
Ben: Should we remove the paragraph as per
Mark
... cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0048.html
<benadida> "If an XML dialect that supports @xml:base eventually implements RDFa,
<benadida> > the RDFa parser for that host language will likely process @xml:base and
<benadida> > use its value to set [base]."
Ben: clear language and remove the misleading example
Mark: remove Appendix A?
... but move other lang stuff up
<benadida> PROPOSE: we remove the xml:base example, and move the xml:base description (minus example) into the main text, removing appendix A.
<mhausenblas> +1
Manu: but don't put it in the processing rules section
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-91
Ben: Issues 93-94 via mailing list
... and issue 95, as well
<markbirbeck> http://web.resource.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/
Mark: some reading I've been doing points to the possibility of leveraging RSS and AtomOwl stuff
Ben: how about XHTMLLiteral?
Mark: For example <content:encoded> from RSS content modules
<ShaneM> implemented issue 91 fix. In the draft at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080313/#sec_5.5.
Mark: RDFa Syntax is quite clear about this
Ben: RDFa Primer will take a new route; volunteers?
Michael: Volunteers to chime into the RDFa Primer
<Ralph> Re: ODF and semantic web [Mark 2007-10-14]
<markbirbeck> Svante Schubert
Steven: http://rdfa.info/2008/03/13/rdfa-support-coming-in-odf-12/
<Ralph> [adjourned]
<Steven> Svante is also on the CSS WG