See also: IRC log, previous 2009-06-02, 2009-06-23
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph publish Antoine's new intermediate pages for legacy specs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-swd-minutes.html#action11]
Ralph: Ivan has submitted a proposal for
support of community fora for SKOS and RDFa
... may know general feeling on that proposal by next telecon (2 weeks)
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ben review RDFa Use Cases and propose transition to Group Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-swd-minutes.html#action02]
ACTION: [DONE] Ralph to raise issue-214 with RDFa TF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-swd-minutes.html#action01]
Ralph: not sure about discussion of issue 214
Ed: what will be the impact of the announcement of XHTML2 WG charter non-renewal past December?
Ralph: in the near term, nothing substantive needs to change, other than the taskforce won't have a charter past September, the RDFa Task Force has achieved its mission. they clearly need a different charter past the end of September. It's part of a proposal that Ivan submitted yesterday to provide wiki/mailing lists for this kind of work. The message from Tim is pretty clear that we're going to invest more resources in the HTML WG, We've committed in the faq to having the discussion about a distributed extension mechanism for HTML at the Technical Plenary in November.
-> Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about the future of XHTML
(see the bits about RDFa in particular)
PROPOSED to publish update of Recipes WG Note:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Apr/0017.html
-- Editor's Draft 7 April 2009 http://berrueta.net/recipes-20090407/ moved into W3C space?
Ralph: I believe we had already resolved that and I have an action
ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph to publish http://berrueta.net/recipes-20090407/ as a WG Note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/02-swd-minutes.html#action07]
ACTION: [DONE] Ralph to move current ED of the RDFa metadata note from wiki to WG space [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/06/02-swd-minutes.html#action10]
-> RDFa Metadata editor's draft copied out of wiki
-> Adding Metadata to W3C Technical Reports Editor's Draft
-> ISSUE-224
Guus: problem that this comment came during
Proposed Rec review
... if we have some local patches, what are the implication?
Ralph: we can make editorial changes to examples
Guus: looking at 6.5.4 ... it's the use of
chemical symbol notation
... I see the syntactic problem with the long language tag
... I don't see the problem with chemical symbol notation
... that's just a datatype
-> 6.5.4. Notations and Preferred Labels
Ralph: use of chemical symbols as "language" may simply be a difference of opinion on principle
Tom: I like the suggestion to resolve by adding a disclaimer pointing people to BCP 47 and saying this is an area where best practice might be evolving
Guus: and people might want to consult this
space before deciding on a solution
... Alistair is more familiar with language issues than either Sean or I; he
may know what to say
Ralph: is Alistair reachable again?
Tom: yes
-> [SKOS] Re: ISSUE-224 [Ralph]
[[
I would recommend instead that we offer to (a) modify the
example(s) to be syntactically conformant and (b) offer to add
a phrase such as "note that such use of private subtags to
transmit data unrelated to language or language choice may
violate BCP 47".
]]
Guus: let's ask Alistair and Sean for their
agreement to this
... we can resolve here that we find Ralph's proposal acceptable contingent
upon Sean and Alistair's agreement
PROPOSE: We (a) modify the example(s) in 6.5.4 to be syntactically conformant to BCP 47 and (b) offer to add a phrase such as "note that such use of private subtags to transmit data unrelated to language or language choice may violate BCP 47" contingent on Alistair and Sean's agreeing
Tom: ok
<edsu> +1
Jon: ok
Guus: ok
RESOLUTION: We (a) modify the example(s) in 6.5.4 to be syntactically conformant to BCP 47 and (b) offer to add a phrase such as "note that such use of private subtags to transmit data unrelated to language or language choice may violate BCP 47" contingent on Alistair and Sean's agreeing
Tom: so editors would write a phrase and offer it to I18N Core?
Ralph: yes
Guus: timing might be tricky
... I'll be away a lot after next week
Guus: let's resolve to fix the editorial change in ISSUE-225
Tom: Sean and I discussed this and I think the singular form is correct
Guus: but we need to respond to the comment
Tom: Sean and I were in agreement that the singular "note" is correct, but I prefer to leave it to him to reply to the comment
PROPOSE: Sean to decide on issue-225
RESOLUTION: Sean to decide on issue-225
Guus: I have a number of actions on
testimonials
... I've asked Antoine to help and he's already done some work
Tom: I'm unavailable in 2 weeks
... propose 4 August
Guus: I'm out 4 August but available on 11 August
Tom: let's work on a press release before you
leave
... before 18 July
... let's try 3-way mail with Ivan in the next 10 days
<GuusS> as an aside: minutes of "publishing vocabs" meeting during Dagstuhl workshop:
<GuusS> http://www.w3.org/2009/07/01-swdag2009-minutes.html
<GuusS> proposal is to publish a white paper, to be edited in ESW wiki
<GuusS> I have the action to see whether this group, in particular TOM, wants to contribute
<GuusS> i have to leave anyway, I hope we covered all
<Ralph> I think so, I'm proposing that you, Tom, Ivan coordinate via email
<GuusS> ok
<GuusS> have a good holiday (I hope you will get some)
<TomB> Guusl, next call on 11 Aug?
next meeting: 11 August, Guus to chair
<GuusS> ok
[adjourned]