RDF in XHTML Task Force

 

 

Action Items

<scribe> ACTION: Ben to figure out *how* to do the namespace-doc GRDDL thing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action18] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Jeremy review and consider expanding the description of TopBraid in the RDFa wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Jeremy to demonstrate GRDDL with XHTML/RDFa once the NS URI is set up. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Manu talk with Jamie McCarthy about an AskSlashdot piece [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Manu to create test cases for testing relative URI resolution (href/CURIEs/etc). [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]

<scribe> ACTION: Manu to upload test harness source code to W3C CVS. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Manu to work with Microformats community to address RDFa as unified markup for uFs. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action08] [DROPPED]

<scribe> ACTION: Manu to write summary for Semantic Web Use Cases for Ivan. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Manu write a pending test case for literal property and no child nodes. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action10] [DONE]

<scribe> ACTION: Manu write the perl code for Slashdot. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]

<scribe> -- continues

<scribe> ACTION: Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]

<Steven> I found Steve Williams's mails and authorized them

<scribe> -- continues

<scribe> ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Ralph to make http://www.w3.org/2008/07/rdfa-xslt happen [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action16] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Shane to update XHTML ns document to point to new XSLT URI [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action17] [CONTINUES]

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2008/10/TPAC/Overview.html

Michael: One tiny question, TPAC
... Do we want to try and promote RDFa at that point?

<Steven> huh

Ben: Don't know, there might be a publishing moratorium.

<JeremyCarroll> I haven't yet decided

<JeremyCarroll> will decide next week

Ben: It would be nice to make some sort of announcement.
... Mark will you be there, or are you still working on it?

Mark: Almost certainly, but not sure.

<benadida> ACTION: Ben to determine how to highlight RDFa at TPAC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-rdfa-minutes.html#action17]

Ben: Yes, we should say something.

Danny Ayer's comments on PR Draft

Ben: is is mostly moot since Toby said that he didn't have any problems implementing?

Shane: Procedurally, it's 100% moot since you can't make those comments against a PR draft.

Ben: What kind of comments can you make at this point?

Shane: Basically, spelling errors, ship it, or throw it away.
... There is no way to make substantiative changes after PR.
... So, that's procedural.

Jeremy: It is possible to make substantiative comments that are sufficiently compelling.
... There may be minor comments that are small changes between PR and REC.

Shane: My understanding is that those can only be editorial changes.

Jeremy: I have seen it happen before, the team can make such a call.

Mark: Obviously we can discuss the finer points of procedure, but there were other issues there.
... Most of his issues were gradually whittled down and he ended up agreeing with most of my remarks.
... There was one final comment, I think.
... I think he has agreed with all but one comment.
... There is one outstanding comment that I didn't reply to.

<benadida> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Sep/0063.html

Mark: That's not the right link.

<Steven> Yes, I authorised them

<mhausenblas> Steven++

Mark: woops, wrong link, the 0063.html link is correct.
... I replied to it.

<benadida> Mark responded with long email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Sep/0065.html

Mark: Hmm, I remember a different e-mail.
... Nevermind, I responded to it.

<benadida> ACTION: Ben to log Danny's issue to tracker. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-rdfa-minutes.html#action18]

Ben: Looks like we might be done.

<benadida> ACTION: Ben to close loop with Danny. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-rdfa-minutes.html#action19]

Jeremy: The RDFa document should not stop other RDFa style processing such as GRDDL.
... I think we could make a small editorial change to make this clearer that we permit GRDDL.

Mark: We need to get a response from him - we said that we explicitly went out of our way to make this possible.
... How do you get the graphs to talk to each other - our point is that you don't. You can have as many processors as you like running on the document.
... We need to make sure that he's clear on that.

Jeremy: He's saying that instead of using 'default graph' that we use the term 'RDFa graph'.
... That feels like a minor editorial change that makes things clearer.

Mark: It's not - an RDFa processor can derive as many graphs as it likes.
... The tricky part is one processor + triples that are not immediately derivable from our processing rules.
... For example, generating a triple for @alt.

Jeremy: What about if default graph, RDFa default graph?

<ShaneM> +1 for RDFa default graph - seems harmless if it helps comprehension

Mark: I don't really mind, but we named it because of what direction we thought SPARQL was headed in.
... I was trying to link this into SPARQL.
... In SPARQL I can run a query against multiple graphs, or I can run a query against the default graph if I don't specify a graph.

Jeremy: I like that, it's tidy and neat.
... I think the problem is that it hasn't been properly formalized in SPARQL.
... If you look at how GRDDL spec is written, it is not making use of name/graph concepts.
... partly because there isn't a name/graph transform - GRDDL says that we merge all graphs together.

Mark: Which is fine, because GRDDL is a way of extracting triples using multiple different types of extractors.
... RDFa is addressing something different.
... We want to keep things separate in the spec.
... We hoped that people would know what we were doing, but they haven't gotten the hint.
... I don't think we should get any more specific in the spec.
... We can't refer to the term "default graph" because it's not defined anywhere yet, but we expect it to be.
... We should ask Danny before we go ahead and change anything.

Ben: We'd rather not change wording if Danny is okay with it.

Jeremy: Good plan - small preference for RDFa default graph.
... Mark's points make a lot of sense, but default graph is unstandardized as is.

Ben: That should close Danny's issue.

<Steven> scribe: Steven

<msporny> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/

Test Cases 113 and 114

Manu: We've got the test harness
... you'll see some new tests
... click on "show detail"
... test 113
... (under 'unreviewed')
... "element with @property and no child nodes generates empty plain literal"

Ben: Looks good

<ShaneM> I like it.

<mhausenblas> +1

Ben: shouldn't an empty and a closed element be identical?

Shane: Depends on the DOM, HTML or XML

Ben: The test looks good

RESOLUTION: test 113 approved

Manu: Test 114
... Relative URI

<mhausenblas> RFC3986 sec 5

Manu: Not a complete coverage

Steven: Text should say "Previous test case"

Shane: I'm not convinced that going up over the top of the tree flattens to nothing

Steven: Wouldn't it also be interesting to do it with about?

Manu: And the predicate?

Steven: I'm in favour

Shane: I would exercise all data types - CURIE CURIES URI URIS URI-OR-SAFE-CURIE

Michael: Approve?

Manu: Not sure.

Mark: The N3 is indeed wrong

<JeremyCarroll> pls paste a url for the n3

http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/

@prefix cc: <http://creativecommons.org/ns#> .

@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .

@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .

@prefix xhv: <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#> .

@prefix xml: <http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace> .

@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .

<http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/0114.xhtml> cc:attributionURL <http://www.w3.org/../../../../> ;

xhv: prev <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/0113.xhtml> ;
... up <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/rdfa-xhtml1-test-manifest.rdf> .

Manu: Put on hold?

<mhausenblas> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt

<mhausenblas> section 5

Mark: Let me look at the spec
... look at 5.4.2

<msporny> Spec states this:

<msporny> "../../../g" = "http://a/g"

<msporny> "../../../../g" = "http://a/g"

Ben: So we agree that many ".."s only go up to the top?

Mark: That's what the spec says

<markbirbeck> "Parsers must be careful in handling cases where there are more ".."

<markbirbeck> segments in a relative-path reference than there are hierarchical

<markbirbeck> levels in the base URI's path. Note that the ".." syntax cannot be

<markbirbeck> used to change the authority component of a URI."

<markbirbeck> oh...Manu already pasted. :)

Shane: If a CURIE prefix is a relative URI

<JeremyCarroll> i agree. test ok. n3 is not. but n3 processing is not part of test being approved

Shane: we say that it is possible but a bad idea

<msporny> ACTION: Manu to write up relative URL resolution targetting @about, @resource etc. for regular URLs, CURIE, and CURIEs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-rdfa-minutes.html#action20]

Shane: do we think that it gets resolved at declaration time or when the CURIE is resolved

Mark: I think the spec is clear on this
... so relative URLs are resolved late

<msporny> scribe: msporny

<Steven> ... namespaces can be relative, but is thought to be a bad idea

thanks steven :)

<Steven> np

RESOLUTION: Accept TC 114 as is.

Shane: I think we do have a clear mapping here.
... Look at section 5.4.2 - good idea not to use relative paths in namespace declarations.

Mark: It's the reason we leave XML base out of there.

Shane: it does solve this problem

Mark: It does create some new potential problems.

Ben: Issue that Jeremy brought up?

<Steven> i/Scribe: Steven/Topic: Test cases

Shane: let's leave it, big topic.

Ben: On vacation next week.

<mhausenblas> Michael: I've done the approval now in the test harness - http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/ should refelect it already ...

Ben: We need to publish primer too and need publication schedule.