Previous: http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-rdfa-minutes.html
See also: IRC log
<scribe> ACTION: Mark to ask Shane to generate URI Everywhere additions to XHTML+RDFa spec. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-rdfa-minutes.html#action07] [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: Manu to aggressively push review of test cases via mailing list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/29-rdfa-minutes.html#action08] [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-rdfa-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: Manu to generate spec text for pulling in external vocabulary documents. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action08] [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-rdfa-minutes.html#action03]
<scribe> ACTION: Manu to get in touch with LibXML developers about TC 142. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-rdfa-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: Mark to generate spec text for @token and @prefix [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-rdfa-minutes.html#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: Mark to generate spec text for pulling in external vocabulary documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]on07! [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-rdfa-minutes.html#action06]
<scribe> ACTION: Manu to try and find other interested parties in RDFa WG. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action08] [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
Shane: Mark's URIs Everywhere proposal
brought up something interesting - calling this stuff URIorCURIE
... There are two ways we can go here
... We can say: These properties take CURIEs, or these properties take
URIs or CURIEs.
... If what we're trying to do is convince people that they can use
URIs, we should leave it alone.
Ivan: For people who have an abstract
mind, it would be fine to use CURIEs...
... However, if you take somebody coming from the outside, they might
not understand that you can use URIs.
... If we use CURIEorURI then the mapping is more clear.
Steven: Since CURIE means compact URI, surely the reason we use it is because it can be compact, but it doesn't need to be.
Shane: It's implemented the way Mark said.
... Permissions on the directory are messed up so I can't upload the
document.
Steven: I tried to fix it... it's reported and being worked on.
Ivan: We received 8 reviews - good number
of reviews (considering christmas and new years)
... 7 say go ahead with the charter.
... 1 gave a comment that was optional.
... all 8 said that they would participate, which is very good.
... Deadline is Jan 26th.
... We should ask for reviews around the 10th-15th.
... We might still get a comment in from somebody that would object.
Manu: We want to gather some general
requirements.
... We want to ensure that it is very simple - 2-5 method calls instead
of 20-30
Ivan: Keep in mind that it should integrate with an RDF API in the future.
Manu: We should make sure that it is
fully implementable in pure Javascript.
... We also should ensure that it's implementable natively in the
browser.
Ivan: I should be able to serialize from RDFa to a triplestore.
Manu: I can volunteer to start editing the RDFa 1.1 API... maybe hand it off to somebody else in the future.
Shane: We should move away from XHTML-way of working on documents to the W3C way of working on documents.
Ivan: We are looking at new ways of editing the spec... so we should discuss that at some time.
<Steven> See http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/test-spec/index.html
<Steven> Uses js to create W3 format
Ivan: SPARQL - all editors have CVS
access and can edit the document. Then there is this new ReSpec stuff.
... We may want to use CVS and some sort of editorial format.
Shane: The way the XHTML WG has done it
for years has a great deal of legacy stuff - I care about the result,
so I have some requirements on what such a system should produce.
... Some of those requirements come from Ian Jacobs. Perhaps I should
write down what some of my requirements are.
... For example, TOCs generated automatically, references
cross-checked, PDFs automatically produced - the more work the
publication framework does, the easier the editors life.
Ivan: The XML editorial stuff that the
SPARQL people use takes care of a good bit of this stuff.
... The down-side is that you have to edit XML.
... Any browser can print to PDF, right?
Shane: Yes, but we want to generate browseable/usable PDFs - TOCs that are linked to, etc.
<ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/rdfa-syntax.pdf
Ivan: There is one more requirement that I would have, which is that it should not depend too much on some complex pipeline of programs.
<Steven> It's 48 pages if I print the HTML version
Ivan: I should be able to edit and publish from my local machine.
<Steven> I like editing in Amaya
Ivan: We shouldn't have to depend on one person or one type of platform.
Shane: With XHTML2 specs - the documents
were written in HTML, but it's a hybrid - there are additional elements
that you can use to annotate things.
... We addressed this by giving CVS access to everyone, but when you
checked it in, the tool would run on the checked in source code.
Manu: There is also the anolis toolchain
- which is pretty useful
... That is what is used to generate HTML+RDFa.
Shane: The life of the document often exceeds the time the editor spends editing the spec.
Ivan: So, how should we proceed.
Manu: Maybe we should be able to try these systems out.
<ivan> this is the robin berjon one
Ivan: I want to make sure this is as easy as possible.
<ShaneM> A lot of what we have done in the past is creating 'elements' to abstract common concepts so that we get consistent styling
<ShaneM> So "aref" is a reference to an attribute. 'eref' is a reference to am element.
Manu: Right, but we have to make sure
that there is a certain level of competence as well.
... Anolis does a great deal of what we're talking about.
Ivan: ReSpec looks very interesting as well.
Manu: Sounds like we don't want to use XMLSpec, moving forward.
Ivan: I think we should look at XMLSpec
as well.
... We should also have a WG wiki - so discussion and drafts can go on
the wiki.
Manu: Perhaps we should migrate rdfa.info/wiki to w3.org/wikis/rdfa ?
<ivan> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/
Ivan: I don't think that would be the
best direction - rdfa.info/wiki is community-based
... I would prefer to have rdfa.info/wiki as a part of the wiki I
mention above.
... I think we should have a wiki area for the Working Group
... and another one for the RDFa Community.
... When we're playing around with ideas on RDFa 1.1 - we want just the
WG to work on those things.
... We should have a MediaWiki instance just for the WG.
Steven: Well, we already have a community setup around rdfa.info - moving it would be damaging to the community.
Manu: We could do some URL-rewriting on the site and not disrupt old URLs.