W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2005

meeting record: 2005-02-23 RDF-in-XHTML Task Force telecon

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:26:58 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050223152608.032b6690@127.0.0.1>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org


                             SWBPD RDF-in-XHTML TF
                                 23 Feb 2005

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Feb/0017.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-swbp-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Ben Adida, Ralph Swick, Dominique Hazael-Massieux, Dan Connolly

   Regrets
          Jeremy Carroll, Mark Birbeck

   Chair
          Ben

   Scribe
          Ralph & Dom

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Status of RDF/A
         2. GRDDL
         3. TP Prep
         4. GRDDL test suite
         5. GRDDL REC Track?
     * Summary of Action Items

     _________________________________________________________________


Status of RDF/A

   Ben: the last official word about RDF/A was at the W3C AC meeting the
   start of December.  According to Steven Pemberton, the XHTML 2.0
   Last Call WD is dependent upon getting RDF/A into the WD

   DanC: WGs are supposed to publish something every 3 months and the
   HTML WG is past that time

   <DanC> (hmm... roadmap update? nope.
   [11] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/xhtml-roadmap/ $Date: 2005/02/23 17:13:44 $ )

   <DanC> [12]Feedback from SWBPD Working Group on RDF/XHTML Ben Adida
   (Monday, 1 November)

     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Nov/0006.html


GRDDL

   Ben: should the RDFHTML TF take up GRDDL?

   DanC: yes! I am shopping this around to various communities
   ... specific customers include RDDL

   -> [13] http://www.rddl.org/ Resource Directory Description Language

   DanC: RDDL uses XML and XLink; it introduces the terms
   'nature' and 'purpose'.  For example, a DTD is a related 
   resource; RDDL would say this resource 'has nature DTD'.
   Natures are like rdf Classes, purposes are like rdf Properties.
   Henry Thompson, editor of XML Schema spec and responsible for the W3C
   XML Schema validation service, has added RDDL support to the
   validation service.  So the W3C XML Schema validator will follow
   pointers from namespace documents using RDDL.  This makes RDDL
   a useful case for GRDDL.  There exist transformations from RDDL
   to RDF.  Henry has swapped this into his head in the context of
   TAG discussions.

   Dom: GRDDL is currently published as a Coordination Group Note.
   One goal for taking GRDDL into the RDFHTML TF is to give it more
   standing

   -> [14] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-grddl-20040413/ Gleaning
   Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages (GRDDL)

   DanC: unclear if "CG Note" status is enough standing for the RDDL
   community

   <DanC> [15]Creative Commons GRDDL story / demonstration Eric Miller,
   C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 15 October 2004, rev. 2 February 2005 (in
   progress)

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2003/g/cc/demo.html

   <DanC> [16]Integrating Data from Multiple XML Schemas with GRDDL and
   RDF (slides, by DanC, in progress)

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2003/g/talk2/

   DanC: (continuing on applications)... trackback; trackback has an
   RDF idiom that uses RDF in XML comments.  It would be nice to take
   the comment markup out and use XSLT.   For these users it is
   apparently too high a barrier to make the containing document be XML

   <TomSawyer> boy... trackback in wordpress with GRDDL... fun fun fun!

   DanC: also the SHOE/DAML/etc. community; some DAML users are
   still out there.  And Creative Commons (and FOAF? DOAP? DOML?)

   Ben: most Creative Commons uses are Dublin Core with some additional
   properties.  Most people will not change the profile attribute in the
   document head

   Ralph: Eric Miller and Michael Sperberg-McQueen are working on a
   proposal that would permit the GRDDL profile to be named in the XML
   Schema, however this still doesn't cover the trackback case

   Dom: another option is an HTTP header

   <DanC> (hmm... are there wordpress plug-ins for creative commons? Joe
   Lambda's blog could model all this cool stuff)

   Dom: we could recommend to implementors of GRDDL processors to
   implement some default behaviors for given doctypes.
   E.g. recommend to GRDDL implementors to apply certain transforms
   automatically to XML pages

   <DanC> (guerrilla standardization ;-)

   Ben: like finding rel='license'

   DanC: I won't be party to that

   Ralph: yeah, ugh

   Ben: what about proposing to the WG to publish GRDDL as a WG Note?

   DanC: who would benefit from this? Not clear that the RDDL community
   feels strongly that the current status is insufficient.

   Dom: There is some work that I as editor would like to do to the spec
   and if it is republished, I think it should be as a WG document
   (e.g. WG Working Draft), not as a CG document

   Ben: Recommendation status would cement this approach as more than
   "just a patch"

   Ralph: perhaps a formal WG Working Draft is a necessary step to put,
   e.g. the Dublin Core community, on notice to give formal feedback

   ACTION: Ralph query Tom Baker about DCMI interest in GRDDL as
   a solution
   [recorded in [17] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-swbp-irc#T16-39-49]

   Ralph: I support bringing GRDDL into the WG

   ->
   [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Feb/0053.html
   [ALL] IMPORTANT: ftf preparations and agenda outline


TP Prep

   Ben: I have a conflict with the 1400-1530 Thursday f2f slot (for
   joint meeting with HTML WG). Any flexibility? I'll look into it

   DanC: the WG could discuss GRDDL outside of the HTML WG joint
   discussion but it would be nice to have them present

   Ralph: what input do you expect from the HTML WG on GRDDL?

   ACTION: Ben ask Mark and Steven for documents that should be
   reviewed prior to our f2f
   [recorded in [19] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-swbp-irc#T16-45-08]

   DanC: e.g. whether there is enough space in this town for
   both RDF/A and GRDDL.

   Dom: note that RDF/A is technically a subset of GRDDL

   <dom> regrets from me for the TF during WG F2F; I have a conflicting
   meeting

   DanC: should I plan to be at the f2f?
   Ralph: yes, please, at least for the RDF/A and GRDDL discussions.

   DanC: ok, i'll put that in my gizmo.  I arrive in Boston on Saturday:
   2005-02-26 lv ORD 17:29 ar BOS 20:46 Saturday AMERICAN AIRLINES #874
   -- [23] http://www.w3.org/2005/03dc-bos/bos-tp-aab.txt


GRDDL test suite

   Dan: Dom has done some work on a test suite.  This would be
   particularly important for REC-track work

   <DanC> [20]Start of a GRDDL Test Suite Dominique Hazael-Massieux
   (Wednesday, 2 February)

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Feb/0005.html

   DanC: Dom's proposal to talk about GRDDL at [21]XTech was accepted
   25-27 May

     [21] http://www.xtech-conference.org/


GRDDL REC Track?

   Ralph: do we have enough time remaining in the BP chartered duration?

   Dan: from an architectural point of view, if the profile points to
   something then we can find license for the extracted RDF.  However
   this does not oblige anyone on the receiving end; specifically
   "if I gather data from the Web, should I know about GRDDL?"
   mSpace from Southampton is an example; should mSpace slurp up
   GRDDL documents?   If GRDDL were a W3C Recommendation it would
   be a clear statement to mSpace-like developers.
   So this Rec? question is really "is GRDDL best practice for
   publishing data in the Web"?

   Ralph: What unresolved issues may still exist in GRDDL?

   DanC: reuse of fragment identifiers

   <DanC> <baseball#patek> :avg .325.

   DanC: some readings of the HTML spec say #patek is a piece of HTML
   markup

   <DanC> (hmm... CR might be just the signal we need to get DC, CC,
   RDDL, etc. to vote with their feet)

   PROPOSE to take GRDDL to SWBP as Rec-track

   DanC: are we quorate to make this decision here?

   ACTION: Ben put the GRDDL to Rec? question to the TF mailing
   list
   [recorded in [22] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-swbp-irc#T16-59-56]

   <DanC> (do give a clear deadline. 7 days is traditional, but given the
   meeting next week, 3 working days seems fair.)


Summary of Action Items

   ACTION: Ben ask Mark and Steven for documents that should be
   reviewed prior to our f2f
   [recorded in [24] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-swbp-irc#T16-45-08]

   ACTION: Ben put the GRDDL to Rec? question to the TF mailing list
   [recorded in [25] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-swbp-irc#T16-59-56]

   ACTION: Ralph query Tom Baker about DCMI interest in GRDDL as a
   solution
   [recorded in [26] http://www.w3.org/2005/02/23-swbp-irc#T16-39-49]


   [End of minutes]

     _________________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [27]scribe.perl version 1.115
    ([28]CVS log)
    $Date: 2005/02/15 22:31:37 $

     [27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 20:27:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:59 GMT