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

meeting record: 2005-11-01 RDF-in-XHTML TF telecon

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 18:02:51 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20051101161923.033f7fc8@127.0.0.1>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

The record of today's meeting[1] is now ready for review.  I expect that
some of the comments people made were not adequately captured;
I hope that those present will augment the record, perhaps using
what is recorded here as a reminder of what you meant to say.

   [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-swbp-minutes.html

A text snapshot of revision 1.2 of 2005/11/01 21:19:23 follows below.

----

RDF in XHTML TF

1 Nov 2005

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Oct/0083.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-swbp-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Ben Adida, Steven Pemberton, Jeremy Carroll, Ralph Swick, Mark
          Birbeck

   Regrets

   Chair
          Ben

   Scribe
          Ralph

   Previous
          [4]2005-10-25

      [4] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-swbp-minutes.html

Contents

     * Topics
         1. CURIE and IPTC
         2. issue 7: syntactic sugar for class attribute
     * Summary of Action Items

     _____________________________________________________________

CURIE and IPTC

   <benadida>
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Oct/0092.html

   Mark: I think the IPTC metadata will mostly be transported in newsml
   "packets"
   ... in an (XML) envelope
   ... not in the HTML payload

   Ben: CURIEs did two things for us: (1) they allowed abbreviation of
   URIs like QNames but without restriction on the 'name' part and (2)
   they were a convenient solution to the bnode reference issue

   Mark: note that Misha said that IPTC intends to use CURIE regardless
   of what XHTML2 does

   Ben: CURIE with []?

   Steven: IPTC is defining its own attributes, so they don't need the
   '[]' approach

   Ralph: the team hesitates to have another mechanism for referencing
   ... why not use entities if abbreviation is a big issue
   ... the bnode question hasn't bubbled up yet
   ... general unease about new syntax (square brackets in particular)
   ... any new syntax would raise concerns; it's not specifically about
   our choice of square brackets

   Jeremy: several concerns; partly about the length of identifiers,
   partly about bnode references
   ... the CURIE solution provides a way to not have to put all the
   complexity up front

   Ralph: perhaps if we had presented the requirements and the pros and
   cons of each of the options then the rationale for the CURIE solution
   would be better understood

   Ben: several of Mark's mails have the pros and cons of options we
   considered
   ... I'd like to start preparing a [rational] document next week

   Ralph: is the issue that xmlns doesn't work the way IPTC wants a real
   issue for us?

   Jeremy: yes, xmlns doesn't work the way anyone wants
   ... I've found several cases that will cause problems; e.g. embedding
   XHTML2 inside an [RDF/A] XHTML2 chunk

   Mark: IPTC is talking about using some other attribute than xmlns
   ... to declare the substitution rules
   ... might even permit the declarations to be contained in a separate
   document

   Jeremy: we've gone to CURIE to abandon syntactic restrictions on the
   right-hand side of QNames
   ... perhaps we can abandon the left-hand side of QName as well

   Mark: CURIE could define substitution mechanism without specifying the
   source of those substitutions
   ... even XPath is using namespace prefixes; no one has proposed
   entities
   ... I've [10]blogged about the CURIE solution last week and folks are
   commenting positively

     [10] http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2005/10/curies-compact-uri-syntax-semantic.html

   Steven: Mark's blog entry was picked up in the [11]O'Reilly Developer
   Weblogs

     [11] http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/8196


issue 7: syntactic sugar for class attribute

   <benadida> [12]syntactic sugar for class attribute

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-current-issues#class

   Ralph: concerns about overloading of the class attribute
   ... the real use of class is to make CSS work, right?

   Steven: why do we need to do this if we use role? role and class are
   very similar but role has more clear semantics
   ... role is meant to do the right thing

   Steven: class is now also used for microformats

   Mark: when role was first proposed it was because class would be
   overloaded
   ... but the reason class would be overloaded was that it did not use
   QNames
   ... now class has been extended to define some semantic meaning but
   people feel class and role have different semantics
   ... it would be a mistake to not define a meaning for class

   Steven: this would be a big change for the entire Web community due to
   namespace defaulting
   ... people would not be able to use unqualified names in the way the
   used to use them

   Mark: if I want a foaf:address and also to style these in green I
   shouldn't have to duplicate more markup

   Steven: an unqualified name is supposed to be interpreted as in the
   local namespace

   Ben: we could define class to be a CURIE

   Mark: we could also define a different namespace defaulting rule

   Ralph: it would be too confusing to have different namespace
   defaulting rules

   <benadida> class="foo"

   Mark: we've defined the namespace rule to make rel='next' work the way
   we want, with next in a particular namespace

   Ben: if we want class="foo" to mean foo in a local namespace then we
   either have a 3rd namespace defaulting rule or class is a URI only,
   not a CURIE

   Mark: alternatively we can say that unqualfied value does not have a
   defined namespace
   ... e.g. the union attribute [in XML Schema] is defined to be based on
   the target namespace

   Ben: next meeting 8 Nov?

   Steven, Jeremy: regrets

   Ben: please use mailing list for additional comments

Summary of Action Items

   [DONE] ACTION: Ben add "should rel, rev, and properties predicate be
   CURIE or CURIE/URI?" to issues list with a summary of the current
   status
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-swbp-minutes.html#action01]

   [DONE] ACTION: Mark send Ben the XML version of the new RDF/A draft
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-swbp-minutes.html#action03]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Mark report on the status of src attribute
   definition
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-swbp-minutes.html#action02]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Steven track and report on Role discussion before
   next Tuesday
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-swbp-minutes.html#action05]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to put together the "ACID" test for XHTML2 RDF/A
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action02]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Mark and Ben to check edge cases of inheritance in
   RDF/A
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action06]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph and Ben to augment the issues list
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/27-swbp-irc#T14-30-04]

   [End of minutes]

   Change Log
$Log: 01-swbp-minutes.html,v $
Revision 1.2  2005/11/01 21:19:23  swick
Cleanup for first publication

     _____________________________________________________________

    $Revision: 1.2 $ of $Date: 2005/11/01 21:19:23 $
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 00:44:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:00 GMT