Meeting Record

RDF-in-XHTML Task Force

Minutes of 03 April 2008

Agenda

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0026.html

Seen

Unknown Ben_Adida, Unknown Ralph, Unknown ShaneM, Unknown Steven, Unknown Steven_, Unknown benadida, Unknown markbirbeck, Unknown msporny

Chair

Unknown Ben

Scribe

Unknown Ralph

IRC Log

Original

Resolutions

that we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as follows 'SHOULD leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no longer requires DOCTYPE', that we *not* require HTML version=, and that we update the XHTML namespace document accordingly. link
we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as follows 'SHOULD leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no longer requires DOCTYPE', that we *not* require HTML version=, and that we update the XHTML namespace document accordingly. link
change @instanceof to @typeof link
Modify processing rules per ISSUE-101 to process bnode-only triples link

Topics

Action Review
ISSUE-102: use a name other than @instanceof
ISSUE-101: garbage-collecting useless triples (or not?)

There are some format problems with the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.

It may be helpful to

14:27:15 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc ←

14:27:30 <Steven> zakim, this will be rdfa

Scribe problem: the name 'Steven' does not match any of the 3 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown Steven: zakim, this will be rdfa ←

14:27:30 <Zakim> ok, Steven; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 33 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Steven; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 33 minutes ←

14:27:41 <Steven> rrsagent, make log public

Unknown Steven: rrsagent, make log public ←

14:28:10 <Steven> I have to pick up the kids, so may be marginally late

Unknown Steven: I have to pick up the kids, so may be marginally late ←

15:00:59 <Zakim> SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started

(No events recorded for 32 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started ←

15:01:05 <Ralph> Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML Task Force

15:01:07 <Zakim> +ShaneM

Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM ←

15:01:44 <Zakim> +Ralph

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ralph ←

15:02:07 <Ralph> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0026.html

15:02:23 <Steven_> zakim, dial steven-617

Scribe problem: the name 'Steven_' does not match any of the 3 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown Steven_: zakim, dial steven-617 ←

15:02:23 <Zakim> ok, Steven_; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Steven_; the call is being made ←

15:02:24 <Zakim> +Steven

Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven ←

15:02:24 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html previous 2008-03-27

Scribe problem: the name 'Ralph' does not match any of the 3 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown Ralph: -> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html previous 2008-03-27 ←

15:03:35 <Zakim> + +1.610.804.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.610.804.aaaa ←

15:03:41 <Zakim> +??P9

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P9 ←

15:03:48 <msporny> zakim, I am ??P9

Scribe problem: the name 'msporny' does not match any of the 3 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown msporny: zakim, I am ??P9 ←

15:03:48 <Zakim> +msporny; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +msporny; got it ←

15:04:23 <Zakim> - +1.610.804.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.610.804.aaaa ←

15:06:36 <Zakim> +Ben_Adida

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ben_Adida ←

15:06:49 <Ralph> Chair: Ben

Scribe problem: the name 'Ben' does not match any of the 0 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names:

15:06:59 <markbirbeck> zakim, code?

Scribe problem: the name 'markbirbeck' does not match any of the 3 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown markbirbeck: zakim, code? ←

15:06:59 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck

Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck ←

15:07:44 <Zakim> +markbirbeck

Zakim IRC Bot: +markbirbeck ←

15:07:54 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose markbirbeck

Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose markbirbeck ←

created using i/scribe: Ralph/Topic: Action Review

1. Action Review

15:08:03 <Ralph> scribe: Ralph

(Scribe set to Unknown Ralph)

15:10:11 <Steven_> +1

Unknown Steven_: +1 ←

15:10:36 <Ralph> Ben: propose not to discuss TAG's feedback on CURIEs here in this telecon

Scribe problem: the name 'Ben' does not match any of the 3 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown Ben: propose not to discuss TAG's feedback on CURIEs here in this telecon ←

15:11:01 <Steven> test

Unknown Steven: test ←

15:11:04 <Ralph> ... TAG's feedback is directed to XHTML2 WG and not RDFa

... TAG's feedback is directed to XHTML2 WG and not RDFa ←

15:11:16 <Ralph> ACTION: Ben and Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]

ACTION: Ben and Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl. [recorded in ACTION-07]">http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-07] ←

15:11:20 <Ralph> -- continues

-- continues ←

15:11:43 <Ralph> [DONE] ACTION: Ben to ask Shane about DOCTYPE and validation. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]

[DONE] ACTION: Ben to ask Shane about DOCTYPE and validation. [recorded in ACTION-10]">http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-10] ←

15:12:02 <Ralph> Ben: we were talking about changing 'SHOULD have a DOCTYPE' to 'MAY have a DOCTYPE'

Unknown Ben: we were talking about changing 'SHOULD have a DOCTYPE' to 'MAY have a DOCTYPE' ←

15:12:10 <Steven> +1

Unknown Steven: +1 ←

15:12:12 <Steven> Yes

Unknown Steven: Yes ←

15:12:17 <Ralph> ... Shane made the point that 'SHOULD' is already optional, so why change anything?

... Shane made the point that 'SHOULD' is already optional, so why change anything? ←

15:12:27 <Ralph> Manu: SHOULD is stronger than MAY

Scribe problem: the name 'Manu' does not match any of the 3 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown Manu: SHOULD is stronger than MAY ←

15:12:41 <Ralph> ... it says "you really really should do this unless you have a good reason not to'

... it says "you really really should do this unless you have a good reason not to' ←

15:12:58 <Ralph> Shane: we're saying that if you want to validate your document you SHOULD have a DOCTYPE

Scribe problem: the name 'Shane' does not match any of the 3 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown Shane: we're saying that if you want to validate your document you SHOULD have a DOCTYPE ←

15:13:11 <Steven> But don't we use the DOCTYPE for follow your nose?

Unknown Steven: But don't we use the DOCTYPE for follow your nose? ←

15:13:13 <Ralph> Ben: what if in the next year the W3C validater no longer requires DOCTYPE?

Unknown Ben: what if in the next year the W3C validater no longer requires DOCTYPE? ←

15:13:23 <Ralph> ... do we make our spec dependent on the current state of validation?

... do we make our spec dependent on the current state of validation? ←

15:13:55 <Steven> How about: SHOULD use a DOCTYPE, but if not then version="XHTML+RDFa 1.0"

Unknown Steven: How about: SHOULD use a DOCTYPE, but if not then version="XHTML+RDFa 1.0" ←

15:14:05 <Ralph> Mark: SHOULD has wiggle room

Scribe problem: the name 'Mark' does not match any of the 3 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown Mark: SHOULD has wiggle room ←

15:14:33 <Ralph> Shane: MAY is a very strange thing to say when you're talking about document conformance

Unknown Shane: MAY is a very strange thing to say when you're talking about document conformance ←

15:14:39 <Ralph> ... MAY is used to talk about implementation conformance

... MAY is used to talk about implementation conformance ←

15:14:53 <Ralph> Ben: I think we should leave it as SHOULD

Unknown Ben: I think we should leave it as SHOULD ←

15:15:09 <Ralph> ... and possibly add a note commenting about validation

... and possibly add a note commenting about validation ←

15:15:19 <Steven> I am happy with either

Unknown Steven: I am happy with either ←

15:15:25 <Ralph> Ralph: what does XHTML1 say about DOCTYPE?

Unknown Ralph: what does XHTML1 say about DOCTYPE? ←

15:15:55 <Ralph> Shane: DOCTYPE is required in XHTML 1.1 and SHOULD in XHTML 1.1 2nd edition

Unknown Shane: DOCTYPE is required in XHTML 1.1 and SHOULD in XHTML 1.1 2nd edition ←

15:16:12 <Ralph> Ben: so we shouldn't weaken the requirements from the host language

Unknown Ben: so we shouldn't weaken the requirements from the host language ←

15:16:19 <Ralph> ... our response to Tim can point to the host language

... our response to Tim can point to the host language ←

15:16:24 <msporny> +1 for SHOULD

Unknown msporny: +1 for SHOULD ←

15:17:34 <Steven> I wish there were an alternative for defining character entities

Unknown Steven: I wish there were an alternative for defining character entities ←

15:17:35 <benadida> PROPOSE: that we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as follows 'SHOULD leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no longer requires DOCTYPE'

Scribe problem: the name 'benadida' does not match any of the 3 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Scribe problem: the name 'PROPOSE' does not match any of the 3 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown PROPOSE: that we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as follows 'SHOULD leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no longer requires DOCTYPE' [ Scribe Assist by Unknown benadida ] ←

15:17:39 <ShaneM> And also point out that "SHOULD" is optional already.

Scribe problem: the name 'ShaneM' does not match any of the 3 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown ShaneM: And also point out that "SHOULD" is optional already. ←

15:17:52 <msporny> +1

Unknown msporny: +1 ←

15:18:20 <Ralph> Steven: do we want to say that if there is no DOCTYPE then there must be @version="XHTML+RDFa"

Unknown Steven: do we want to say that if there is no DOCTYPE then there must be @version="XHTML+RDFa" ←

15:18:44 <Ralph> Ralph: no. I thought we agreed last week that we'd update the namespace document

Unknown Ralph: no. I thought we agreed last week that we'd update the namespace document ←

15:19:02 <Ralph> Shane: no objection to updating the namespace document but it does nothing for announcement

Unknown Shane: no objection to updating the namespace document but it does nothing for announcement ←

15:19:30 <Ralph> ... what does something for announcement is if we agree that all XHTML languages have these new attributes

... what does something for announcement is if we agree that all XHTML languages have these new attributes ←

15:20:08 <Ralph> ... and that has impact outside the XHTML2 WG

... and that has impact outside the XHTML2 WG ←

15:20:34 <Ralph> Steven: I think we're capable of changing the namespace document

Unknown Steven: I think we're capable of changing the namespace document ←

15:20:51 <Ralph> ... we could even turn the namespace document into an RDFa document

... we could even turn the namespace document into an RDFa document ←

15:21:25 <benadida> PROPOSE: that we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as follows 'SHOULD leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no longer requires DOCTYPE', that we *not* require HTML version=, and that we update the XHTML namespace document accordingly.

Unknown PROPOSE: that we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as follows 'SHOULD leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no longer requires DOCTYPE', that we *not* require HTML version=, and that we update the XHTML namespace document accordingly. [ Scribe Assist by Unknown benadida ] ←

15:21:37 <Steven> +1

Unknown Steven: +1 ←

15:22:21 <benadida> RESOLVED: that we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as follows 'SHOULD leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no longer requires DOCTYPE', that we *not* require HTML version=, and that we update the XHTML namespace document accordingly.

RESOLVED: that we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as follows 'SHOULD leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no longer requires DOCTYPE', that we *not* require HTML version=, and that we update the XHTML namespace document accordingly. ←

15:22:41 <Steven> rrsagent,make minutes

Unknown Steven: rrsagent,make minutes ←

15:22:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Steven

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Steven ←

15:22:45 <Ralph> [DONE] ACTION: Manu correct test 11 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]

[DONE] ACTION: Manu correct test 11 [recorded in ACTION-12]">http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-12] ←

15:23:02 <Ralph> [DONE] ACTION: Mark to double check the _:a bnode notation in RDFa syntax [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]

[DONE] ACTION: Mark to double check the _:a bnode notation in RDFa syntax [recorded in ACTION-11]">http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-11] ←

15:23:11 <Ralph> Mark: done during last week's call

Unknown Mark: done during last week's call ←

15:23:17 <Steven> s/RESOLVED/RESOLUTION/

15:23:22 <Steven> rrsagent,make mintes

Unknown Steven: rrsagent,make mintes ←

15:23:22 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make mintes', Steven.  Try /msg RRSAgent help

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I'm logging. I don't understand 'make mintes', Steven. Try /msg RRSAgent help ←

15:23:25 <Ralph> ... Shane noted that it was not mentioned anywhere but then we found it

... Shane noted that it was not mentioned anywhere but then we found it ←

15:23:28 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes

Unknown Steven: rrsagent, make minutes ←

15:23:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Steven

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Steven ←

15:23:43 <Ralph> Shane: it's mentioned in an informative section and should be moved up to the normative processing rules

Unknown Shane: it's mentioned in an informative section and should be moved up to the normative processing rules ←

15:23:54 <Ralph> Mark: you have to piece together information from 3 parts

Unknown Mark: you have to piece together information from 3 parts ←

15:24:19 <Ralph> RESOLVED: we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as follows 'SHOULD leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no longer requires DOCTYPE', that we *not* require HTML version=, and that we update the XHTML namespace document accordingly.

RESOLVED: we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as follows 'SHOULD leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no longer requires DOCTYPE', that we *not* require HTML version=, and that we update the XHTML namespace document accordingly. ←

15:24:27 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes

Unknown Steven: rrsagent, make minutes ←

15:24:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Steven

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Steven ←

15:25:08 <benadida> ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section

ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section ←

15:25:31 <Ralph> ACTION: 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]

ACTION: Ben followup with Fabien on getting his RDFa GRDDL transform transferred to W3C [recorded in ACTION-01]">http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-01] ←

15:25:33 <Ralph> -- continues

-- continues ←

15:25:56 <Ralph> Ben: Fabien did update his transform but it's not yet under W3C software license on the W3C site

Unknown Ben: Fabien did update his transform but it's not yet under W3C software license on the W3C site ←

15:26:07 <Ralph> ACTION: Ben to follow up on media type discussion with Steven, Ralph, and TAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]

ACTION: Ben to follow up on media type discussion with Steven, Ralph, and TAG [recorded in ACTION-08]">http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-08] ←

15:26:09 <Ralph> -- continues

-- continues ←

15:27:04 <Ralph> ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]

ACTION: Ben to respond to ISSUE-87 [recorded in ACTION-09]">http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-09] ←

15:27:05 <Ralph> -- continues

-- continues ←

15:27:16 <Ralph> ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]

ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness [recorded in ACTION-13]">http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-13] ←

15:27:29 <Ralph> -- continues

-- continues ←

15:27:41 <Ralph> Manu: almost done.  I have to respond to some comments from DanC

Unknown Manu: almost done. I have to respond to some comments from DanC ←

15:28:02 <Ralph> ACTION: Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]

ACTION: Mark/Shane include ISSUE-89 correction in Changes section [recorded in ACTION-11]">http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-11] ←

15:28:04 <Ralph> -- continues

-- continues ←

15:28:09 <Ralph> ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]

ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in ACTION-12]">http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-12] ←

15:28:10 <Ralph> -- continues

-- continues ←

15:28:57 <Ralph> i/scribe: ralph/Topic: Action Review

i/scribe: ralph/Topic: Action Review (warning: replacement failed) ←

15:29:35 <Ralph> Topic: ISSUE-102: use a name other than @instanceof

2. ISSUE-102: use a name other than @instanceof

15:29:46 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/102 issue 102

-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/102 ISSUE-102 ←

15:29:51 <benadida> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0211.html

Unknown benadida: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0211.html ←

15:30:43 <Ralph> Ben: poll around the table?

Unknown Ben: poll around the table? ←

15:31:04 <Ralph> Steven: I'm in favor of a new name.  I posted a list of ~50.  I didn't propose a favorite

Unknown Steven: I'm in favor of a new name. I posted a list of ~50. I didn't propose a favorite ←

15:31:39 <Ralph> Mark: [each of us] needs to argue in favor of one position

Unknown Mark: [each of us] needs to argue in favor of one position ←

15:31:52 <Ralph> Steven: I'd be happy with @kind

Unknown Steven: I'd be happy with @kind ←

15:32:07 <Ralph> Ben: from mail, @kind and @typeof seem to be bubbling up high

Unknown Ben: from mail, @kind and @typeof seem to be bubbling up high ←

15:32:53 <Ralph> Steven: @typeof has the same prior use issues that @instanceof had

Unknown Steven: @typeof has the same prior use issues that @instanceof had ←

15:33:15 <Ralph> Mark: lots of suggestions have been made and each has had problems.

Unknown Mark: lots of suggestions have been made and each has had problems. ←

15:33:37 <Ralph> ... I think @instanceof is fine

... I think @instanceof is fine ←

15:34:19 <Ralph> ... the only alternative that works for me is @typeof

... the only alternative that works for me is @typeof ←

15:35:57 <Ralph> ... people know what "type" means even if they're not fully conversant in set theory

... people know what "type" means even if they're not fully conversant in set theory ←

15:36:01 <Ralph> Manu: @typeof

Unknown Manu: @typeof ←

15:36:26 <Ralph> ... I consider how easy it is to explain to a normal Web developer

... I consider how easy it is to explain to a normal Web developer ←

15:36:43 <Ralph> ... I've never really liked @instanceof

... I've never really liked @instanceof ←

15:37:30 <Steven> <p contains="cal:Vevent">

Unknown Steven: <p contains="cal:Vevent"> ←

15:38:17 <Steven> q+

Unknown Steven: q+ ←

15:38:31 <Ralph> Ralph: @typeof feels like the wrong direction to me

Unknown Ralph: @typeof feels like the wrong direction to me ←

15:39:00 <Ralph> ... but I don't feel strongly between @instanceof and @typeof

... but I don't feel strongly between @instanceof and @typeof ←

15:39:05 <Ralph> ... I think we could justify either

... I think we could justify either ←

15:39:18 <Ralph> Shane: @typeof is OK with me

Unknown Shane: @typeof is OK with me ←

15:39:27 <Ralph> Steven: we're addressing the microformats crowd

Unknown Steven: we're addressing the microformats crowd ←

15:39:44 <Ralph> ... it's nice of the words suggest something without having to refer to RDF Concepts

... it's nice of the words suggest something without having to refer to RDF concepts ←

15:39:52 <Ralph> s/Concepts/concepts/

15:40:34 <Ralph> Mark: but we should be careful not to say something that's wrong in the world of RDF concepts

Unknown Mark: but we should be careful not to say something that's wrong in the world of RDF concepts ←

15:40:52 <Ralph> ... e.g. 'contains' doesn't have an RDF interpretation

... e.g. 'contains' doesn't have an RDF interpretation ←

15:42:09 <Ralph> Ben: both @kind and @typeof are superior to @instanceof

Unknown Ben: both @kind and @typeof are superior to @instanceof ←

15:43:15 <Ralph> ... I'm ok with @typeof but single-word things are nice

... I'm ok with @typeof but single-word things are nice ←

15:43:33 <Ralph> ... @kind is less likely to receive complaints

... @kind is less likely to receive complaints ←

15:44:15 <Ralph> ... and telling people it's 'kind like mankind'

... and telling people it's 'kind like mankind' ←

15:44:25 <Ralph> [Personkind :) ]

[Personkind :) ] ←

15:44:46 <Ralph> Mark: I don't doubt that @kind can be explained

Unknown Mark: I don't doubt that @kind can be explained ←

15:44:57 <Ralph> ... and isn't this very close to the Germanic ?

... and isn't this very close to the Germanic ? ←

15:45:34 <Ralph> ... do we even want to have to send the one-line 'kind like mankind' mail?

... do we even want to have to send the one-line 'kind like mankind' mail? ←

15:46:01 <Ralph> ... I think @kind would generate more questions than @typeof

... I think @kind would generate more questions than @typeof ←

15:47:07 <Ralph> Steven: I prefer @typeof to @instanceof

Unknown Steven: I prefer @typeof to @instanceof ←

15:48:20 <Ralph> PROPOSE: change @instanceof to @typeof

Unknown PROPOSE: change @instanceof to @typeof ←

15:48:28 <msporny> +1

Unknown msporny: +1 ←

15:48:34 <Ralph> no objection

no objection ←

15:48:34 <ShaneM> +1

Unknown ShaneM: +1 ←

15:48:49 <markbirbeck> +1

Unknown markbirbeck: +1 ←

15:49:56 <benadida> +1

Unknown benadida: +1 ←

15:50:26 <Steven> abstain

Unknown Steven: abstain ←

15:50:33 <Ralph> RESOLVED: change @instanceof to @typeof

RESOLVED: change @instanceof to @typeof ←

15:50:54 <Ralph> ACTION: Mark and Shane update Syntax to change @instanceof to @typeof

ACTION: Mark and Shane update Syntax to change @instanceof to @typeof ←

15:51:08 <Ralph> ACTION: Manu update test cases to change @instanceof to @typeof

ACTION: Manu update test cases to change @instanceof to @typeof ←

15:51:10 <Steven> I abstain because I think it is a bad choice, but I don't expect anything I suggest will gain traction, since I've already tried so many

Unknown Steven: I abstain because I think it is a bad choice, but I don't expect anything I suggest will gain traction, since I've already tried so many ←

15:52:45 <Ralph> Ben: does this require another Last Call?

Unknown Ben: does this require another Last Call? ←

15:53:28 <Ralph> Ralph: if we believe there will be objections then it's less costly to do another Last Call than to discover objections in CR

Unknown Ralph: if we believe there will be objections then it's less costly to do another Last Call than to discover objections in CR ←

15:53:37 <Ralph> Shane: we should get Yahoo!'s feedback

Unknown Shane: we should get Yahoo!'s feedback ←

15:53:49 <ShaneM> I would like to see a new test case that uses @instanceof and should fail

Unknown ShaneM: I would like to see a new test case that uses @instanceof and should fail ←

15:54:05 <Ralph> ACTION: Ben write to Micah for feedback on change to @typeof

ACTION: Ben write to Micah for feedback on change to @typeof ←

15:57:16 <Ralph> Topic: ISSUE-101: garbage-collecting useless triples (or not?)

3. ISSUE-101: garbage-collecting useless triples (or not?)

15:57:24 <Ralph> -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/101 issue 101

-> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/101 ISSUE-101 ←

15:58:01 <Ralph> Ben: "late binding" is better terminology than "garbage collection", as Shane noted

Unknown Ben: "late binding" is better terminology than "garbage collection", as Shane noted ←

15:58:21 <ShaneM> I have to leave, but for the record I am in favor of generating these triples even if they are meaningless.  Or rather, I don't mind either way.

Unknown ShaneM: I have to leave, but for the record I am in favor of generating these triples even if they are meaningless. Or rather, I don't mind either way. ←

15:58:37 <ShaneM> +q

Unknown ShaneM: +q ←

15:58:55 <Zakim> -ShaneM

Zakim IRC Bot: -ShaneM ←

15:59:15 <Ralph> Mark: the irony is frustrating as it only comes from Ivan's notes

Unknown Mark: the irony is frustrating as it only comes from Ivan's notes ←

15:59:46 <Ralph> ... it was purely by chance that I discovered that by moving something outside of the recursion we could eliminate these triples

... it was purely by chance that I discovered that by moving something outside of the recursion we could eliminate these triples ←

16:00:19 <Ralph> ... this came as a side-effect of fixing a bug uncovered during SWD WG review

... this came as a side-effect of fixing a bug uncovered during SWD WG review ←

16:01:42 <Ralph> ... it's incorrect to say this is impossible to handle this in XSLT

... it's incorrect to say this is impossible to handle this in XSLT ←

16:02:21 <Ralph> ... I am, however, worried about introducing other problems if we change this

... I am, however, worried about introducing other problems if we change this ←

16:03:13 <Ralph> Ben: my parser is conformant in every way except this one; I've just never made this change

Unknown Ben: my parser is conformant in every way except this one; I've just never made this change ←

16:03:23 <Ralph> Manu: I prefer keeping the current rule set as is

Unknown Manu: I prefer keeping the current rule set as is ←

16:04:07 <markbirbeck> q+

Unknown markbirbeck: q+ ←

16:04:37 <Ralph> ... I don't see a use case for all these nested @rels

... I don't see a use case for all these nested @rels ←

16:05:19 <Ralph> ... I don't see a use case for building up triples with all these meaningless bnodes

... I don't see a use case for building up triples with all these meaningless bnodes ←

16:06:11 <Ralph> ... I don't see sufficient benefits to this change

... I don't see sufficient benefits to this change ←

16:06:49 <Ralph> Mark: while I agree with Manu, there's an opposing view

Unknown Mark: while I agree with Manu, there's an opposing view ←

16:07:16 <Ralph> ... one of the consequences of the error that I fixed is that when there are multiple @property as the child of a hanging triple you repeat the hanging thing

... one of the consequences of the error that I fixed is that when there are multiple @property as the child of a hanging triple you repeat the hanging thing ←

16:07:47 <Ralph> ... you could argue that if we're leaving things as they are then it's not a big leap to asking us to eliminate _all_ redundant triples

... you could argue that if we're leaving things as they are then it's not a big leap to asking us to eliminate _all_ redundant triples ←

16:08:10 <Ralph> ... I wonder if we're setting ourselves up to something

... I wonder if we're setting ourselves up to something ←

16:08:24 <Ralph> ... it may be more honest to admit there's stuff lying around

... it may be more honest to admit there's stuff lying around ←

16:08:57 <Ralph> Ben: it could seem inconsistent to keep this flag here to get rid of redundant triples yet keep redundant triples elsewhere

Unknown Ben: it could seem inconsistent to keep this flag here to get rid of redundant triples yet keep duplicate triples elsewhere ←

16:09:25 <Ralph> s/keep redundant/keep duplicate/

16:09:34 <Ralph> Steven: I don't have a strong feeling either way

Unknown Steven: I don't have a strong feeling either way ←

16:10:56 <Ralph> Ralph: I'm concerned that if we make this change we should do more testing

Unknown Ralph: I'm concerned that if we make this change we should do more testing ←

16:11:26 <msporny> q+

Unknown msporny: q+ ←

16:12:11 <Ralph> Ben: if this is an issue that is really needling a few people and it takes us a few weeks to test, that seems reasonable to me

Unknown Ben: if this is an issue that is really needling a few people and it takes us a few weeks to test, that seems reasonable to me ←

16:12:38 <Ralph> Mark: the extra complexity in the rules is not to do with this issue but to deal with a bug in the recursion spotted by the SWD review

Unknown Mark: the extra complexity in the rules is not to do with this issue but to deal with a bug in the recursion spotted by the SWD review ←

16:12:55 <Ralph> ... I noted that my fix to the recursion could also address something Ivan noted

... I noted that my fix to the recursion could also address something Ivan noted ←

16:13:25 <Ralph> Ben: the complexity may just be a perception

Unknown Ben: the complexity may just be a perception ←

16:14:06 <Ralph> ... taking 3 weeks to resolve this may be worthwhile

... taking 3 weeks to resolve this may be worthwhile ←

16:14:29 <Ralph> Mark: the completion of incomplete triples can be made conditional

Unknown Mark: the completion of incomplete triples can be made conditional ←

16:14:44 <Ralph> ... could make a tiny change to _always_ complete triples

... could make a tiny change to _always_ complete triples ←

16:15:10 <Ralph> ... this might have less risk of new bugs but wouldn't produce a big simplification

... this might have less risk of new bugs but wouldn't produce a big simplification ←

16:15:24 <Ralph> Manu: we should be very careful about why we're making this change

Unknown Manu: we should be very careful about why we're making this change ←

16:15:36 <Ralph> ... and I don't see that a change here will reduce the complexity of the rules

... and I don't see that a change here will reduce the complexity of the rules ←

16:16:06 <Ralph> ... the only argument [that persuades me] is that people will be building up their triples in this particular way by creating lots of bnodes

... the only argument [that persuades me] is that people will be building up their triples in this particular way by creating lots of bnodes ←

16:16:18 <Ralph> ... if it doesn't simplify the rules then it won't simplify the implmentation

... if it doesn't simplify the rules then it won't simplify the implmentation ←

16:16:29 <Ralph> Ben: but we have an explicit comment from Micah to that effect

Unknown Ben: but we have an explicit comment from Micah to that effect ←

16:17:04 <Steven> Regrets for next week

Unknown Steven: Regrets for next week ←

16:17:09 <Ralph> Mark: but [Micah's comment] mis-identifies where the complexity is coming from

Unknown Mark: but [Micah's comment] mis-identifies where the complexity is coming from ←

16:17:23 <Ralph> ... Micah is seeing the recursion as complex in order to get rid of extra triples

... Micah is seeing the recursion as complex in order to get rid of extra triples ←

16:17:42 <Ralph> ... but the recursion is there to handle intervening markup

... but the recursion is there to handle intervening markup ←

16:18:10 <Ralph> ... my reference to 'extra triples' in the spec is misleading people to think that's the reason for the recursion

... my reference to 'extra triples' in the spec is misleading people to think that's the reason for the recursion ←

16:18:12 <Steven> gotta go

Unknown Steven: gotta go ←

16:18:46 <Ralph> ... I still think it's an easy change but as we all know, any change brings a risk of introducing new bugs

... I still think it's an easy change but as we all know, any change brings a risk of introducing new bugs ←

16:18:59 <Ralph> Ralph: and I'm ok with 3 weeks to test if we believe the change is useful

Unknown Ralph: and I'm ok with 3 weeks to test if we believe the change is useful ←

16:19:06 <Ralph> Ben: I'm also ok with 3 weeks

Unknown Ben: I'm also ok with 3 weeks ←

16:19:14 <Ralph> ... I feel strongly that this could be misleading

... I feel strongly that this could be misleading ←

16:19:31 <Ralph> ... my concern was always about authors and what could be confusing to them

... my concern was always about authors and what could be confusing to them ←

16:19:46 <Ralph> ... DanBri seems to think this is actually _wrong_

... DanBri seems to think this is actually _wrong_ ←

16:20:59 <Ralph> Ben: Steven and Shane don't seem to feel strongly either way

Unknown Ben: Steven and Shane don't seem to feel strongly either way ←

16:21:24 <Ralph> Mark: if there's no other reason to repeat Last Call, I'd leave the spec as is

Unknown Mark: if there's no other reason to repeat Last Call, I'd leave the spec as is ←

16:23:45 <Ralph> Ralph: I'm mostly concerned about leaving adequate testing time if we make this change

Unknown Ralph: I'm mostly concerned about leaving adequate testing time if we make this change ←

16:24:00 <Ralph> ... in particular, we won't likely get a new cleanroom implementation

... in particular, we won't likely get a new cleanroom implementation ←

16:24:13 <Ralph> Ben: I'm willing to do a new clean room implementation

Unknown Ben: I'm willing to do a new clean room implementation ←

16:24:27 <Ralph> Manu: I don't see a strong reason to change

Unknown Manu: I don't see a strong reason to change ←

16:27:22 <Zakim> -markbirbeck

Zakim IRC Bot: -markbirbeck ←

16:27:41 <Ralph> ... but adding 3 weeks to the schedule bothers me

... but adding 3 weeks to the schedule bothers me ←

16:27:45 <markbirbeck> Sorry about that, but I have to fax off a large document, so need the phone. :)

Unknown markbirbeck: Sorry about that, but I have to fax off a large document, so need the phone. :) ←

16:28:41 <markbirbeck> tell me about it.....

Unknown markbirbeck: tell me about it..... ←

16:28:45 <benadida> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0256.html

Unknown benadida: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0256.html ←

16:33:33 <Ralph> PROPOSED: Modify processing rules per ISSUE-101 to process bnode-only triples

PROPOSED: Modify processing rules per ISSUE-101 to process bnode-only triples ←

16:33:51 <Ralph> PROPOSED: Modify processing rules per ISSUE-101 to process and produce triples consisting of only bnodes

PROPOSED: Modify processing rules per ISSUE-101 to process and produce triples consisting of only bnodes ←

16:35:05 <Ralph> Ralph: Shane and Mark seem to lean on the side of keeping the triples

Unknown Ralph: Shane and Mark seem to lean on the side of keeping the triples ←

16:35:22 <Ralph> Ralph: Steven seems to be abstaining

Unknown Ralph: Steven seems to be abstaining ←

16:35:44 <Ralph> Ralph: I'm ok with the change if Ben does a cleanroom implementation and we add time to test

Unknown Ralph: I'm ok with the change if Ben does a cleanroom implementation and we add time to test ←

16:35:57 <benadida> +1 to proposal

Unknown benadida: +1 to proposal ←

16:37:21 <msporny> +1, only if the group is okay with extending testing for another 3-4 weeks and Ben has a cleanroom implementation. I don't particularly agree that the change is helpful, but others feel that this will help authors.

Unknown msporny: +1, only if the group is okay with extending testing for another 3-4 weeks and Ben has a cleanroom implementation. I don't particularly agree that the change is helpful, but others feel that this will help authors. ←

16:37:47 <Ralph> RESOLVED: Modify processing rules per ISSUE-101 to process bnode-only triples

RESOLVED: Modify processing rules per ISSUE-101 to process bnode-only triples ←

16:38:15 <Ralph> Ralph: we don't actually know if Steven, Mark, and Shane agree to the +3 weeks so they'll have to object if that's the case

Unknown Ralph: we don't actually know if Steven, Mark, and Shane agree to the +3 weeks so they'll have to object if that's the case ←

16:51:00 <Zakim> -msporny

(No events recorded for 12 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: -msporny ←

16:51:00 <Zakim> -Ralph

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ralph ←

16:51:02 <Zakim> -Ben_Adida

Scribe problem: the name 'Ben_Adida' does not match any of the 3 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ben_Adida ←

16:51:51 <Ralph> zakim, list attendees

zakim, list attendees ←

16:51:51 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ShaneM, Ralph, Steven, +1.610.804.aaaa, msporny, Ben_Adida, markbirbeck

Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been ShaneM, Ralph, Steven, +1.610.804.aaaa, msporny, Ben_Adida, markbirbeck ←

16:51:58 <Ralph> rrsagent, please draft minutes

rrsagent, please draft minutes ←

16:51:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph ←

16:52:55 <Ralph> i/scribe: Ralph/Topic: Action Review

16:53:01 <Ralph> [adjourned]

[adjourned] ←

16:53:03 <Ralph> rrsagent, please draft minutes

rrsagent, please draft minutes ←

16:53:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph ←

16:53:42 <Ralph> rrsagent, bye

rrsagent, bye ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent> I see 11 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-actions.rdf :

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 11 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-actions.rdf : ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ben and Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07] [1]

ACTION: Ben and Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl. [recorded in ACTION-07]">http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-07] [1] ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-11-16

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-11-16 ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section [2]

ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section [2] ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-25-08

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-25-08 ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: 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] [3]

ACTION: Ben followup with Fabien on getting his RDFa GRDDL transform transferred to W3C [recorded in ACTION-01]">http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-01] [3] ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-25-31

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-25-31 ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ben to follow up on media type discussion with Steven, Ralph, and TAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action08] [4]

ACTION: Ben to follow up on media type discussion with Steven, Ralph, and TAG [recorded in ACTION-08]">http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-08] [4] ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-26-07

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-26-07 ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] [5]

ACTION: Ben to respond to ISSUE-87 [recorded in ACTION-09]">http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-09] [5] ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-27-04

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-27-04 ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] [6]

ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness [recorded in ACTION-13]">http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-13] [6] ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-27-16

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-27-16 ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] [7]

ACTION: Mark/Shane include ISSUE-89 correction in Changes section [recorded in ACTION-11]">http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-11] [7] ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-28-02

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-28-02 ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] [8]

ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in ACTION-12]">http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#ACTION-12] [8] ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-28-09

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-28-09 ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Mark and Shane update Syntax to change @instanceof to @typeof [9]

ACTION: Mark and Shane update Syntax to change @instanceof to @typeof [9] ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-50-54

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-50-54 ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Manu update test cases to change @instanceof to @typeof [10]

ACTION: Manu update test cases to change @instanceof to @typeof [10] ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-51-08

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-51-08 ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Ben write to Micah for feedback on change to @typeof [11]

ACTION: Ben write to Micah for feedback on change to @typeof [11] ←

16:53:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-54-05

RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc#T15-54-05 ←

Formatted by CommonScribe