- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:59:58 -0400
- To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
The [1]record of today's telecon is now available for review. A text snapshot
of $Revision: 1.2 $ of $Date: 2005/10/25 15:55:12 $ is included below.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-swbp-minutes.html
----
SWBPD RDF-in-XHTML TF
25 Oct 2005
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Oct/0051.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-swbp-irc
Attendees
Present
Ben Adida, Ralph Swick, Mark Birbeck, Jeremy Carroll
Regrets
Steven Pemberton
Chair
Ben
Scribe
Ralph
Previous
[4]2005-10-18
[4] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-swbp-minutes.html
Contents
* Topics
+ New CURIE and RDF/A drafts
* Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________________
New CURIE and RDF/A drafts
-> [7]Drafts of CURIE note, RDF/A spec, and Examples [22]
[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Oct/0043.html
[22] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action06
Ben: those who've not read the documents produced over the weekend are
appropriately chastized
Ben: the [8]2005-10-21 RDF/A syntax document does not use '[...]'
around every QName; e.g. in REL
[8] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-rdfa-spec
Mark: that's ok until we decide the CURIE issue
... '[]' will only be required in cases of ambiguity between QName and
URI values
Ben: so if we're working in the default XHTML namespace, then
rel='next' should be interpreted as being in the default XHTML
namespace
Jeremy: there are two ways of reading unprefixed QNames
... rel='next' can be interpreted as 'next' in the default (i.e.
XHTML) namespace
... but the other way, as in unprefixed attributes, reads as the
unprefixed attribute is in no namespace rather than in a default
namespace
... I suggest that rel='next' interpret 'next' as being in the default
namespace
Mark: the two ways are to read as relative to xml:base or as relative
to the XML namespace structure
RESOLUTION: CURIEs read as relative to the XML namespace tree
Mark: the predicates are changing anyway, so we're really talking
about xh2:next
Ben: in current HTML, it would be nice if the same syntax (rel='next')
had a reasonable interpretation
Jeremy: in XHTML1 rel='next' has no meaning in triples
... meaning in triples is new to XHTML2
... pragmatically it doesn't matter what namespace we put 'next' in
... we don't have to refer to the XHTML1 definition except as the
XHTML2 definition may incorporate parts of XHTML1 definition
Jeremy: we don't need to treat all the RELs the same; we can enumerate
some values for one namespace, other values for a different namespace,
and say what happens to all other values
... legacy considerations need not corrupt the design; we can treat
them specially
<Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to ask if the 'E' denotes anything in
'CURIE'
Mark: I added the 'E' to CURIE to distinguish this work from an old
proposal 'canonical URI' that shows up in searches
... also, I liked the connection to the Curie family
... an advantage of rel='[...]' is that we can have full URIs when
useful
... so we gain an easy way to make statements about predicates
Ben: it's a quick way to include a triple without declaring namespaces
Jeremy: I suggest we list the XHTML1 cases as special cases and go
with CURIE in REL
Mark: when we have defined the formal triples from XHTML2, much of the
syntax works in XHTML1
... though in an XHTML2 document we'd generate xh2:next and in an
XHTML1 document [the interpretation would be] xh1:next
Jeremy: we can define the special cases to generate what we want; i.e.
xh2:next
Ralph Jeremy mentioned the ability to enumerate a group of legacy
options.
Jeremy: 'next' should be supported for legacy reasons but a page that
is explicitly XHTML2 should use '[next]'
Mark: yes, if you want the triple use '[ ]'
... if you're only interested in browser behavior, don't write '[ ]'
Ralph: I strongly argue against an approach that says to do different
things if you're only interested in browser behavior versus declaring
some semantics
... that is, 'next' means only behavior and '[next]' means
behavior+semantics
Mark: one solution would be to define currentdocument:next as the same
as xh2:next
Jeremy: I'd rather this be a syntactic patch
Ben: solution 1 is CURIE so rel='next' is interpreted as xh2:next (and
xh1:next)
... solution 2 is to require '[ ]'
... solution 3 is to spec that 'next' is interpreted within the parser
as '[ ]'; i.e. all the legacies are CURIE
... under solution 3 document authors have to be careful if they
change the default namespace
Mark: other languages, such as SVG, take pieces from XHTML
Jeremy: could also tune the CURIE definition more to distinguish when
a '/' is present or not
Mark: there might be cases where having a URI rather than a CURIE
might be advantageous but I think a generic solution will be better
Jeremy: the RDF/XML experience is that supporting different ways to
say the same thing is confusing
... i.e. different ways to define a predicate versus use a predicate
slows deployment
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]
<benadida> [10]current-issues#src
[10] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-current-issues#src
Ben: I've added 5 more issues that arose while writing the new RDF/A
syntax document
... [11]using SRC attribute as subject
[11] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-current-issues#src
-> [12]Applying Metadata to the src URI
[12] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-current-issues#src
<benadida> <img src="photo1.jpg">
<benadida> <link rel="cc:license" href="..." />
<benadida> </img>
Mark: in XHTML2 you can use src= anywhere; it's like transclusion
... the element content is used only if you fail to read the content
at that URI
... so Ben's proposal for issue 6 means you could include metadata for
the transcluded content
Jeremy: transclusion is a defaulting mechanism rather than a failure
mechanism
... i.e. the element content can be interpreted as 'additional to' the
image rather than 'instead of' the image
Mark: not sure
... e.g. one use case is to nest text inside image inside video
... where the intent was to use the image if the video failed and use
the text if both failed
Jeremy: but the user can configure the browser to, for example, show
the image with the text popping up when the cursor was over the image
and show the video when you click on the image
Mark: there has been talk about treating this as a kind of conditional
XInclude
... considering the impact on the DOM
Jeremy: could have <p src='...'> and have metadata both in the
document containing the <p> and the src document
Mark: XInclude is expected to happen before the DOM is built; once you
have the DOM you're not aware the XInclude has taken place
ACTION: Mark report on the status of src attribute definition
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
Ben Review others items on the [14]issues list
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-current-issues
Mark: what else is critical before Thursday hand-over?
Ben: take a look at the [15]class attribute issue
... get me feedback by the end of the day on Thursday and I'll send
Guus a new draft on Friday, with apologies for being 12 hours late
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-current-issues#class
Jeremy: we want feedback from the f2f on whether this will be
acceptable to the Semantic Web community if it were adopted by the
HTML WG
... so as long as the issues list is not too long we should be able to
provide adequate guidance to the HTML WG
... we don't have to decide all the minor issues but we do have to
document them
Mark: the real examples will help a lot
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]
[16] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-swbp-minutes.html#action03
next meeting: 1 Nov, regrets from Jeremy
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] 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]
[NEW] ACTION: Mark report on the status of src attribute definition
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] 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: 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]
[DONE] ACTION: Ben add repeating URI in IMG case to issues list
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-swbp-minutes.html#action03]
[DONE] ACTION: Ben put notes in the Web from Boston discussion with
Mark [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/11-swbp-minutes.html#action05]
[DONE] ACTION: Mark write CURI specification by 10 Oct
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/04-swbp-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
Change Log:
$Log: 25-swbp-minutes.html,v $
Revision 1.2 2005/10/25 15:55:12 swick
Cleanup for publication
_________________________________________________________________
$Revision: 1.2 $ of $Date: 2005/10/25 15:55:12 $
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2005 16:00:17 UTC