IRC log of rdfa on 2011-01-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:54:27 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:54:27 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/01/27-rdfa-irc
14:54:29 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:54:29 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:54:31 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 7332
14:54:31 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
14:54:32 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
14:54:32 [trackbot]
Date: 27 January 2011
15:00:00 [Knud]
Knud has joined #rdfa
15:00:11 [Zakim]
SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
15:00:19 [Zakim]
+ +3539149aaaa
15:00:27 [Knud]
zakim, I am aaaa
15:00:27 [Zakim]
+Knud; got it
15:00:36 [manu1]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Jan/0138.html
15:00:38 [manu1]
Chair: Manu
15:00:56 [manu1]
Present: Ivan, Benjamin, Manu, Knud
15:00:59 [manu1]
Regrets: Nathan
15:00:59 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:00:59 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:01:00 [Zakim]
-Knud
15:01:00 [Zakim]
+Knud
15:01:00 [Zakim]
+Ivan
15:01:09 [markbirbeck]
markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
15:01:30 [Zakim]
+??P54
15:01:36 [manu1]
zakim, I am ??P54
15:01:36 [Zakim]
+manu1; got it
15:02:42 [manu1]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:02:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Knud, Ivan, manu1
15:03:29 [markbirbeck]
zakim, code?
15:03:29 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), markbirbeck
15:04:16 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:04:19 [Zakim]
+ +200000aabb
15:04:24 [markbirbeck]
zakim, i am aabb
15:04:24 [Zakim]
+markbirbeck; got it
15:04:27 [Zakim]
+ +1.612.217.aacc
15:05:08 [manu1]
zakim, mute knud
15:05:08 [Zakim]
Knud should now be muted
15:05:39 [manu1]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:05:39 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Knud (muted), Ivan, manu1, markbirbeck, +1.612.217.aacc
15:06:02 [ivan]
zakim, aacc is ShaneM
15:06:02 [Zakim]
+ShaneM; got it
15:06:22 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
15:06:22 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
15:06:39 [ivan]
scribenick: ivan
15:06:58 [ivan]
manu1: is it necessary to discuss the issue of default profile
15:07:12 [ivan]
... this may be a good idea in discussing with html5
15:07:28 [ivan]
... let us do the editorial issues first
15:07:46 [ivan]
manu1: shane, did you look at steven's editorial issues?
15:07:54 [manu1]
Topic: Approving Editorial suggestions?
15:07:57 [manu1]
1) Approve editorial suggestions?
15:07:58 [ivan]
ShaneM: yes I have
15:07:58 [manu1]
ISSUE-71: Shelley Power's LC comments
15:08:00 [manu1]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/71
15:08:01 [manu1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Jan/0137.html
15:08:03 [manu1]
ISSUE-79: Integrate CURIE information
15:08:05 [manu1]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/79
15:08:06 [Steven_]
Steven_ has joined #rdfa
15:08:07 [manu1]
ISSUE-80: Integrate attribute information
15:08:09 [manu1]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/80
15:08:11 [manu1]
ISSUE-81: Make declarative definition normative, procedural
15:08:11 [ivan]
manu1: what do you think are they ok?
15:08:12 [manu1]
definition informative.
15:08:14 [manu1]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/81
15:08:14 [ivan]
ShaneM: wel...
15:08:16 [ivan]
...
15:08:18 [ivan]
...
15:08:31 [ivan]
... ahm
15:08:50 [Steven_]
zakim, dial steven-617
15:08:50 [Zakim]
ok, Steven_; the call is being made
15:08:52 [manu1]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/79
15:08:53 [Zakim]
+Steven
15:09:10 [ivan]
... take issue 79: to merge some curie information
15:09:13 [Steven_]
Sorry for being late, I was on another call, and missed the time
15:09:14 [ivan]
... my reaction is no
15:09:42 [ivan]
... we need a free standing curie section which is not only rdfa
15:09:52 [ivan]
... merging the sections would be problematic
15:10:17 [manu1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#compact-uris
15:10:22 [ivan]
... section ??? is a historical section that mark wrote back in the day to justify curie-s
15:10:38 [Steven_]
s/???/3.8/
15:10:42 [ivan]
... it does not really say anything about them and it is not normative
15:10:48 [ivan]
... i would prefer to let them alone, too
15:11:03 [ivan]
manu1: essentially, issue 79 suggestion is to leave that as it is
15:11:04 [Steven_]
Iḿ OK with that
15:11:05 [ivan]
ShaneM: yep
15:11:17 [ivan]
(WG accepted)
15:11:28 [Zakim]
-manu1
15:11:45 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:12:02 [ivan]
ShaneM: on issue 80
15:12:11 [manu1]
ISSUE-80: Integrate attribute information - http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/80
15:12:11 [trackbot]
ISSUE-80 Editorial - Integrate attribute information. Triage of Issue 75 - Part 2 notes added
15:12:23 [ivan]
.... the commenter is concerned that normative definitions and datatypes are scattered all over the place
15:12:29 [ivan]
... it was not true, but it might be true now
15:12:46 [ivan]
... section 8 has a lot of info, but it does not define any datatype (section 5)
15:12:58 [ivan]
... my proposal is to make it so that section 5 is complete
15:13:10 [ivan]
... it defined the attributes and syntax
15:13:54 [ivan]
... section 7.4.4., which is part of a larger section on curie and uri processing, I would be happy to remove
15:14:03 [ivan]
... it is defined in section (or it should be)
15:14:15 [manu1]
zakim, I am [IPcaller]
15:14:15 [Zakim]
ok, manu1, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
15:14:23 [manu1]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:14:23 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Knud (muted), Ivan (muted), markbirbeck, ShaneM, Steven, [IPcaller]
15:14:24 [ivan]
... mark, is it o.k with you?
15:14:43 [ivan]
markbirbeck: it is fine with me; it is a self contained part, though
15:15:03 [ivan]
... but it is indeed a summary
15:15:11 [ivan]
... it does not add anything
15:15:28 [ivan]
ShaneM: as it stands now, you have to read it
15:15:39 [ivan]
... it does not say what that datatype says
15:15:44 [ivan]
... it is safe to remove it
15:15:58 [ivan]
manu1: agree with that
15:16:06 [ivan]
... any objection to remove that section?
15:16:17 [ivan]
markbirbeck: how do we feel about other sections?
15:16:27 [ivan]
manu1: nobody complained about other sections...
15:16:36 [ivan]
... so, maybe we can look through those
15:16:45 [ivan]
... at present we do not have any issues about this
15:17:08 [ivan]
ShaneM: mark, if you have a strong objection, my alternative is to fix 7.4.4
15:17:21 [ivan]
... right now it is a bit coloquial
15:17:39 [ivan]
markbirbeck: I do not have a strong objection, but, eg, 7.4.2 does it look any better?
15:17:49 [ivan]
... jenni would like to have everything in one place
15:17:54 [ivan]
... which makes sense
15:18:07 [ivan]
... if it is possible to fix 7.4.4 rather, I would prefer this a bit
15:18:23 [ivan]
... I am happy either way, I let shane decide
15:18:40 [ivan]
ShaneM: mark, I agree that 7.2.2 has the same problem as 7.2.4 has, it is imprecise
15:19:00 [ivan]
... fixing it would mean referencing the datatypes back to the absolute definitions
15:19:26 [ivan]
... we are not referencing it here, there is no tie
15:20:04 [ivan]
manu: there is also something here that says to make 7.4.4. non normative and the other normative
15:20:14 [ivan]
... that approach goes into the next issue we are talking about
15:20:49 [ivan]
... shane, do you agree making these explanatory section non-normative? This ties in into the next section
15:20:58 [ivan]
ShaneM: she wanted section 8 to be non-normative
15:21:14 [ivan]
... section 7 there is no section I would make non-normative, it is important for implementers
15:21:25 [ivan]
.... section 8 is more something like a test suite
15:21:36 [ivan]
... it gave me a bunch of examples
15:21:56 [ivan]
... I would defer to mark on whether section 8 should be non-normative
15:22:16 [ivan]
manu: I trust you, shane, to make the right decision
15:22:52 [ivan]
... talking about issue 80, shane offers to point back to the datatypes from the prose
15:23:08 [ivan]
ShaneM: the same for 7.4.4
15:23:14 [ivan]
... they both need those tie-back
15:23:21 [ivan]
manu: any objection?
15:23:23 [ivan]
...
15:23:26 [ivan]
(WG agreed)
15:23:29 [manu1]
ISSUE-81 Make declarative definition normative, procedural definition informative, http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/81
15:23:46 [ivan]
Steven_: I agree with her about this
15:24:09 [ivan]
... if we agree that 7.5 and 8 are overlapping, I agree making one normative and the other informative, advise for implementations
15:24:20 [ivan]
ShaneM: I said I would defer to mark...
15:24:34 [ivan]
markbirbeck: ... but you hinted it is a good idea:-)
15:24:40 [manu1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#s_rdfaindetail
15:24:55 [ivan]
... the original idea was that one was a friendly explanation of section 7
15:25:03 [ivan]
... if we are sure that everything is covered
15:25:23 [ivan]
... then shane's suggestion (section 8 is informative, section 7 normative) is fine
15:25:58 [ivan]
manu: when I did my implementation than I just implemented the process
15:26:05 [ivan]
... and then looking at the examples
15:26:33 [ivan]
ShaneM: we are making so many changes that we will have a 2nd last call:-)
15:26:47 [ivan]
... I am not worried about the change
15:27:03 [ivan]
... I will have to make a cleaner implementation before 2nd last call
15:27:14 [ivan]
q+
15:28:06 [ivan]
manu: from a design standpoint this is the right thing to do, if we find an issue
15:28:08 [manu1]
ack ivan
15:28:09 [ivan]
ack ivan
15:28:31 [manu1]
Ivan: I used Section 7 almost exclusively for my implementation.
15:28:38 [manu1]
Ivan: I used section 8 for checking my understanding.
15:28:57 [ivan]
manu: any objection to follow shane's offer, section 8 non-normative?
15:28:58 [ivan]
....
15:29:02 [ivan]
(WG accepted)
15:29:05 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
15:29:05 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
15:29:15 [ivan]
manu1: last issue is Shelley's comments
15:29:20 [manu1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Jan/0137.html
15:29:24 [ivan]
... everything that she had was editorial
15:29:32 [manu1]
ISSUE-71
15:29:35 [ivan]
... and they were not as heavy as Jeni's
15:29:46 [ivan]
ISSUE-71?
15:29:46 [trackbot]
ISSUE-71 -- RDFa Core 1.1 LC comments from Shelley Powers -- open
15:29:46 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/71
15:30:02 [ivan]
ShaneM: sorry, I did not have time to look at those, let us skip those
15:30:14 [ivan]
ISSUE-78?
15:30:14 [trackbot]
ISSUE-78 -- Should we have default prefixes and terms for host languages -- open
15:30:14 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/78
15:30:29 [ShaneM]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/78
15:31:10 [manu1]
ISSUE-73?
15:31:10 [trackbot]
ISSUE-73 -- The RDFa WG needs to determine how each RDFa Profile document is managed -- open
15:31:10 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/73
15:31:15 [ivan]
manu1: it is the whole issue of the default profile, what goes there, etc
15:31:20 [ivan]
zakim, unmute me
15:31:20 [Zakim]
Ivan should no longer be muted
15:31:31 [manu1]
Ivan: There are several sub-issues here
15:31:45 [manu1]
Ivan: Do we want a default profile in the first place?
15:32:01 [manu1]
Ivan: Is the content of the default profile frozen at the time of REC?
15:32:21 [manu1]
Ivan: Is there a community-driven mechanism that allows people to add to the default profile over time?
15:32:32 [manu1]
Ivan: In case we have a community-driven mechanism, what is it?
15:32:38 [Steven_]
q+
15:32:42 [manu1]
Ivan: These are all related
15:34:20 [manu1]
Ivan: Do we want to have Dublin Core, FOAF, prefixes defined in the default profile for RDFa?
15:34:55 [manu1]
Manu: Do we want to have a single RDFa default profile for all languages?
15:35:35 [manu1]
Ivan: Do prefixes defined in the default profile scale? What about UAs that can't cache the profiles?
15:35:56 [manu1]
ack Steven_
15:37:30 [manu1]
Steven: I think RDFa does the right thing - we allow caching... registries are problematic.
15:37:40 [manu1]
Ivan: Authors sometimes don't put in the namespace declarations.
15:37:50 [manu1]
I have a proposal:
15:38:02 [manu1]
We have 1 RDFa default profile for all languages.
15:38:19 [manu1]
We allow new prefixes to be registered up until RDFa Core 1.1 goes to REC.
15:38:23 [manu1]
same with terms.
15:38:41 [manu1]
We don't allow new prefixes to be added to the RDFa default profile document after REC.
15:38:57 [manu1]
but we do allow items to be suggested for the next revision of RDFa Core.
15:39:31 [manu1]
q+
15:39:42 [manu1]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:39:42 [Zakim]
+manu1; got it
15:39:45 [manu1]
q?
15:40:46 [manu1]
For a vocabulary to be included in the default profile, it must exhibit
15:40:48 [manu1]
at least the following:
15:40:49 [manu1]
1. Be long-lived, use a URL redirecting service, or be controlled by an
15:40:51 [manu1]
organization that could ensure that the vocabulary stay reachable
15:40:52 [manu1]
for 10+ years or more.
15:40:54 [manu1]
2. Be of general use to web developers (so, rdf, rdfa, xsd, foaf, dc
15:40:55 [manu1]
would make the cut... unsure about skos and owl).
15:40:57 [manu1]
3. Be well documented, designed well and in use by a community that
15:40:58 [manu1]
can demonstrate that the vocabulary will be maintained for 10+ years.
15:41:19 [ShaneM]
q+ to discuss profile evolution
15:41:42 [ivan]
manu1: these are all issues, high level thoughts from everybody?
15:41:45 [manu1]
ack
15:42:02 [ivan]
I have put in irc my own approach
15:42:11 [ivan]
... we used to talk about xml, svg, etc profiles
15:42:30 [ivan]
... but what ivan put in on the mailing list to have only one default profile
15:42:42 [ivan]
... that would simplify things, only one profile is relevant
15:42:50 [ivan]
... I think that is a good idea
15:43:10 [ivan]
... as far as community managed registry: I think it would be a massive headache to have something that works for eveyone
15:43:30 [ivan]
... if we agree to have that, we have to talk to the players
15:43:42 [ivan]
... this should be fixed
15:43:56 [ivan]
... when the rec are published
15:43:59 [ivan]
q+
15:44:11 [ivan]
... and have some sort of a mechanism to update?
15:44:22 [manu1]
ack
15:44:31 [manu1]
ack [IPcaller]
15:44:35 [markbirbeck]
q+
15:45:42 [ivan]
manu1: proposal would be to take one registry, update it every X years, but not absolutely dynamic
15:45:43 [manu1]
ack shaneM
15:45:43 [Zakim]
ShaneM, you wanted to discuss profile evolution
15:46:04 [ivan]
ShaneM: you suggest that host languages would not have a default profiles
15:46:24 [ivan]
manu1: we would have one default profile for all our languages
15:46:37 [ivan]
ShaneM: that would not solve things
15:46:46 [ivan]
... we have no announcement mechanism
15:46:59 [ivan]
... I would modify your proposal to say that host languages cannot define their own profile
15:47:00 [manu1]
ack
15:47:02 [manu1]
ack ivan
15:47:40 [manu1]
ack markbirbeck
15:48:14 [ivan]
markbirbeck: one problem is to have a uri to profile that keeps changing
15:48:26 [ivan]
... one step would be to freeze a profile but also freeze the uri
15:48:27 [manu1]
http://w3.org/rdfa-1.1-default-profile
15:48:31 [manu1]
http://w3.org/rdfa-2.0-default-profile
15:48:40 [ivan]
... based on a date
15:48:44 [ivan]
... which could then be changed
15:48:49 [manu1]
http://w3.org/2011/05/15/rdfa-default-profile
15:48:57 [ivan]
... what people want is that the profile attribute would not be specified
15:49:18 [ivan]
... you then allow people to refer to a profile specificly
15:49:22 [ivan]
q+
15:49:31 [manu1]
I like that suggest, Mark
15:49:38 [manu1]
I like that suggestion, Mark
15:49:46 [ivan]
... but we have the possibility to have a default profile for a language
15:49:59 [ivan]
... or default value for the profile attribute is XXX
15:50:21 [ivan]
... that gets round the moving thing
15:50:31 [ivan]
... but we talk about caching
15:50:51 [manu1]
I agree that we need to hardcode profiles into processors...
15:50:56 [ivan]
... but always thoughts is that much more likely scenario is that people will hard code profiles
15:51:07 [ivan]
... and then if you take that in context
15:51:12 [manu1]
you don't need to, but I think that's what most implementations are going to do.
15:51:27 [ivan]
... in the original version we had the idea of profiles referring to other profiles
15:51:44 [ivan]
... that would give a much more dynamic features
15:52:02 [ivan]
... drupal could create a profile that would aggregate another profile
15:52:04 [ivan]
... etc
15:52:09 [ivan]
q+
15:52:26 [manu1]
I have issues w/ recursively sucking in profiles.
15:52:28 [manu1]
ack ivan
15:53:21 [manu1]
Ivan: What this means is that every 2 years, W3C would open a new group to revise profiles.
15:53:28 [manu1]
Ivan: I don't think that's feasible.
15:53:53 [markbirbeck]
@manu: I would say that's because you're seeing profiles as something to be loaded on the fly. :)
15:54:44 [manu1]
Ivan: If we can issue a new profile every 2 years, we make noise about it, implementers will have to update their implementations (hardcoded or not)
15:55:04 [manu1]
Ivan: I don't think we should bind these two things together - profiles having a dated URI vs. non-dated URI is a good idea.
15:55:16 [manu1]
Ivan: That's slightly orthogonal, though.
15:55:26 [manu1]
q?
15:55:44 [ivan]
markbirbeck: I think that we should not use the latest URI, we should always require an explicit URI
15:55:53 [ivan]
... you do not gain the latest
15:56:26 [manu1]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:56:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Knud (muted), Ivan, markbirbeck, ShaneM, Steven, manu1
15:56:45 [ivan]
ShaneM: mark, to expand on someting you said
15:56:56 [ivan]
... assuming we had dated URI-s as profiles as they evolve
15:57:21 [ivan]
... would you expect implementation to hardcode all of those, so that pages that have explicit references to one would get it
15:57:45 [ivan]
markbirbeck: well... I am picturing that there is a new release of a new ontology
15:57:57 [ivan]
... then w3c creates a new profile with the new ontology
15:58:08 [ivan]
... the only reason an implementer might hard code it
15:58:23 [ivan]
... it is only for if somebody uses that explicitly
15:58:37 [ivan]
... whether this finds its way into an rdfa language
15:58:45 [ivan]
... so we would just refer to the latest
15:58:57 [ivan]
... in the rdfa document
15:59:05 [ivan]
... implementers may choose how they do it
15:59:37 [ivan]
manu1: we should have a super session of LC
15:59:49 [ivan]
.. our list is growing and we shall fill up the whole of february
15:59:53 [manu1]
http://www.doodle.com/4kztvct2gd3wqvs8
16:00:07 [ivan]
... please put up your availability
16:00:13 [ivan]
... hopefully close a lot of them
16:01:23 [manu1]
Should we have one default profile for all RDFa languages? Any objections?
16:03:09 [manu1]
Shane: No objection, do you think it will work for HTML WG?
16:04:46 [manu1]
PROPOSAL: RDFa 1.1 will have one default profile for all Host languages.
16:05:10 [ShaneM]
+1 - NOTE that it might be a 'default default profile'
16:05:15 [manu1]
+1
16:05:24 [Knud]
+1
16:05:24 [ivan]
+1
16:05:25 [Steven_]
+0
16:05:31 [markbirbeck]
+1
16:05:39 [manu1]
RESOLVED: RDFa 1.1 will have one default profile for all Host languages.
16:08:40 [manu1]
PROPOSAL: RDFa WG will define a set of prefixes and terms for the default profile, those prefixes/terms will be frozen at REC (a mechanism will be setup to update the default profile before RDFa Core goes to REC)
16:09:33 [ivan]
PROPOSAL: RDFa WG will define a set of prefixes and terms for the default profile; a mechanism will be setup to update the default profile before RDFa Core goes to REC
16:10:26 [ivan]
PROPOSAL: RDFa WG will define a set of prefixes and terms for the default profile; a mechanism will be proposed to update the default profile
16:10:41 [markbirbeck]
+1
16:10:46 [ivan]
+1
16:10:49 [manu1]
+1
16:11:50 [manu1]
zakim, who is on the call?
16:11:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Knud (muted), Ivan, markbirbeck, ShaneM, Steven, manu1
16:11:51 [Knud]
+1
16:11:57 [ShaneM]
+1.....
16:13:02 [manu1]
RESOLVED: RDFa WG will define a set of prefixes and terms for the default profile; a mechanism will be proposed to update the default profile
16:14:18 [markbirbeck]
What about: PROPOSAL: RDFa WG will define a profile with a set of prefixes and terms, and this profile will be referenced as the default profile. A mechanism will also be proposed for creating additional profiles which can be referenced as the default profile for future versions of RDFa.
16:16:12 [Steven_]
+1
16:18:01 [Zakim]
-Knud
16:18:06 [Knud]
Knud has left #rdfa
16:18:54 [Zakim]
-markbirbeck
16:19:15 [markbirbeck]
@Ivan: What you seek is simply not possible.
16:19:46 [markbirbeck]
And it would be a major mistake to try to achieve it by having a profile that can change at any time.
16:19:55 [webr3]
just fyi, js3 has over 100 prefixes defined by default, and in the past two weeks I've had 4 requests to add more to the default profile, including one two seconds ago to add bibo
16:20:05 [manu1]
http://w3.org/profiles/rdfa-default
16:20:20 [markbirbeck]
It makes caching "meaningless", since you can't reliably cache.
16:20:40 [manu1]
http://w3.org/profiles/2010/05/14/rdfa-default
16:20:59 [markbirbeck]
It makes hard-coding into phones and small devices meaningless, too.
16:21:00 [manu1]
RDFa 1.1 => default profile => http://w3.org/profiles/2010/05/14/rdfa-default
16:21:22 [markbirbeck]
(BTW, not sure why I got dropped...the phone went dead on me.)
16:21:28 [manu1]
RDFa 2.0 => default profile => http://w3.org/profiles/2015/05/14/rdfa-default
16:21:39 [ShaneM]
q+ to discuss process
16:21:46 [manu1]
ack shanem
16:21:46 [Zakim]
ShaneM, you wanted to discuss process
16:24:09 [manu1]
q+
16:25:13 [webr3]
RDFa 1.1 processors must recognise the following prefixes: x,y,z - this list is also available as an RDFa Profile here: http://..... (then repeat for each new spec)
16:26:34 [manu1]
ack
16:26:39 [manu1]
ack manu1
16:27:10 [manu1]
we seem to be coming to some sort of consensus:
16:29:27 [manu1]
We bind RDFa 1.1 profile to a dated URL.
16:30:59 [manu1]
For example: http://w3c.org/profiles/2010/05/15/rdfa-default
16:31:12 [manu1]
That profile could be updated every 2+ years
16:31:27 [manu1]
RDFa 1.1 is bound to that URL as the default profile
16:32:40 [manu1]
http://w3c.org/profiles/rdfa/1.1
16:34:23 [Zakim]
-manu1
16:34:24 [ivan]
zakim, drop me
16:34:24 [Zakim]
-ShaneM
16:34:24 [Zakim]
Ivan is being disconnected
16:34:28 [Zakim]
-Ivan
16:34:32 [Zakim]
-Steven
16:34:34 [Zakim]
SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
16:34:38 [Zakim]
Attendees were +3539149aaaa, Knud, Ivan, manu1, +200000aabb, markbirbeck, +1.612.217.aacc, ShaneM, Steven