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

meeting record: 2005-11-15 HTML TF telecon

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:24:50 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20051116202233.031868c8@127.0.0.1>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

The record [1] of yesterday's RDF-in-HTML TF telecon is now ready
for review.  A text shapshot of revision 1.2  2005/11/17 01:19:19 follows.

The next meeting is scheduled for 22 November, 1500 UTC.

   [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/15-swbp-minutes

----
HTML TF, SWBPD WG

15 Nov 2005

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Nov/0025.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/15-swbp-irc

Attendees

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

   Regrets
   Chair
          Ben

   Scribe
          Ralph

   Previous
          [4]2005-11-01

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

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Schedule
         2. CURIEs
     * Summary of Action Items

     _____________________________________________________________

Schedule

   Ben: we should target to complete our work by 1 Feb

   Steven: what happens if we don't?

   Ben: we make some sort of recommendation on where to continue the
   work, perhaps within HTML WG

   Ralph: very clear sense from WG participants that having a
   point-of-contact within SW WG to this task force is important. The
   SWBPD charter may get extended a few months, should this work be
   bundled with that? There may be a new SW working group with new
   chairs, and this TF could attach there, too.

   Ben: Guus and David made it clear they want output from this TF before
   31 Jan

   Ralph: we also get that pressure from others outside the WG

   Steven: the HTML WG agreed at its f2f to go to Last Call. We have
   answered all comments; we are now replying to comments and doing edits
   to bring the document into Last Call shape. We expect perhaps a 6-week
   Last Call. There's a chance that there might be a second Last Call

   Ralph: where does RDF/A syntax document fit in?

   Steven: HTML WG would pull the necessary parts of the RDF/A syntax
   draft into XHTML2 WD simply due to maturity level dependencies

   Ben: what about the RDF/A primer? would that be a separate document?

   Steven: yes, we haven't included primer material in the XHTML
   specification document; it would be a separate document. The primer
   could easily be a Note

   Mark: I would like to see CURIEs incorporated into RDF/A and thence
   into XHTML2

   Ralph: CURIE needs to be REC-track to have any real benefit and if
   RDF/A syntax depends on CURIE then it should not be a separate
   document from XHTML2 spec

   Steven: HTML WG has already accepted the CURIE idea in principle

   Mark: the biggest issue came up when IPTC suggested they might not use
   namespaces as the binding mechanism

   Steven: an interesting conclusion from the recent mail discussion is
   that many of the objections go away if we change the character from
   ':' to something else

   Mark: responses to my blog point out that CURIE is a way of codifying
   some existing practice in WiKis and elsewhere
   ... I point out that CURIE also tidies up QName usage; QNames can be
   reserved for what they were intended for in XML

   Ralph: I view Norm as a friendly reviewer -- if we are able to
   persuade him then we've likely done all our homework

CURIEs

   Mark: Norm's biggest objection was that there might be two meanings to
   a given abc:def pattern; one interpreted using namespaces and one not.
   But I point out that this ambiguity already exists and in practice is
   resolved in context. In RDF/XML, the elements are interpreted as URIs

   Ralph: and we're proud of that!

   Mark: Norm seemed to be happier if there was no ambiguity that a CURIE
   might be a namespace reference

   <Zakim> benadida, you wanted to ask about QName resolution

   Ben: one course of action would be to review all our prior discussions
   and document what solutions we considered

   Mark: CURIE work originated with IPTC requirement but since then we've
   recognized an issue with use of QNames -- that QNames are not an
   abbreviation for a URI. So the rationale for CURIE no longer depends
   on the IPTC use case; we have a stronger motivation. The TAG finding
   encourages people not to use QNames in this way unless they really
   have to

   Ralph: RDF relies on QNames so this question may come back to haunt us

   Mark: it's really RDF/XML that depends on QNames -- it's crazy that N3
   syntax has to use them with their restrictions

   <Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to ask about ':' vs something else

   Ben: the argument for a change from ':' is to not appear to conflict
   with QName syntax but is there a real conflict? My impression is that
   there is not

   Mark: the conflict may be more political

   Ben: if we agree to change CURIE syntax, will we be forced to change
   other uses of QNames?

   Ralph: I see an architectural compromise of the form "QNames SHOULD
   NOT be used as abbreviations for URIs" -- not MUST NOT but a possible
   future consideration for any abbreviated URI syntax could be whether
   it can be used as an XML element name

   Steven: I don't see that reverse transformation as being necessary.
   Norm points out that an element name is a pair (prefix, localname) --
   not a concatenation of two string

   Mark: the issue may only be that RDF/XML uses the term "QName" too
   often. I described this in mail: "[9]RE: CURIEs vs. QNames". I believe
   that CURIE can continue to use ':' without ambiguity, just as is done
   in XPath

      [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Nov/0021.html

   Ralph: so if there is no actual ambiguity, I would argue that it
   increases the learning curve for users to have different syntaxes for
   QName and Abbreviated URI

   Ben: if there is no technical conflict, I prefer to keep the ':'

   Steven: there is a level of conflict that we resolve with square
   brackets so if we keep ':' we still have to do something else for,
   e.g. unadorned CURIE in href. We still need a syntax to distinguish
   CURIE and URIs

   Ben: yes, the context will let us distinguish QName and CURIE

   <Steven> SO if we use [dc:licence] to distinguish, then we could use
   [dc]licence instead (for instance)

   Mark: how about dc[license]

   Ralph: that looks like a URI; I could imagine a current use of
   href="dc[license]"

   Mark: '[' is a disallowed URI character

   Ralph: are you sure?

   ACTION: Mark investigate authoritative specifications for '[' as a URI
   character
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/15-swbp-minutes.html#action01]

   Mark: note that use of ':' in CURIE allows existing N3 documents to be
   correctly interpreted, as QName is a subset of CURIE

   Ben: I am willing to work on the RDF/A primer, targetting an early
   December WG review

   <MarkB> "The "national" and "punctuation" characters do not appear in
   any productions and therefore may not appear in URLs. "

   <MarkB> from: [11]

     [11] http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/5_BNF.html

   <MarkB> 'National' contains '[' and ']': [12]

     [12] http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/5_BNF.html#z57

   Ben: we have several little issues remaining; src, role, etc.

   <MarkB> (along with '^', '~', '{' and '}')

   <MarkB> (...and '\')

   Ben: regrets for 20 Dec

   Ralph, Steven: regrets for 29 Nov

   <Steven> It looks like [ ] are allowed: [13]

     [13] http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html#collected-abnf

   <MarkB> no...just said they are not allowed.

   <Steven> I think that that sytax has been obsoleted by RFC 3986

   Ben: let's work on the smaller issues next week from the [14]issues
   list

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

   next meeting: 22 Nov, regrets from Steven

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Mark investigate authoritative specifications for
   '[' as a URI character
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/15-swbp-minutes.html#action01]

   [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: 15-swbp-minutes.html,v $
Revision 1.2  2005/11/17 01:19:19  swick
cleanup for publishing

     _____________________________________________________________


    $Date: 2005/11/17 01:19:19 $
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2005 01:25:34 GMT

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