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

meeting record: 2005-09-20 RDF-in-XHTML TF telecon

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:09:50 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

The [1]record of today's telecon is now available for review.

   [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/09/20-swbp-minutes.html

A text snapshot of revision 1.2  $Date: 2005/09/20 16:04:14 $ follows.
                             SWBPD RDF-in-XHTML TF

20 Sep 2005

   See also: [2]Agenda, [3]IRC log

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Sep/0015.html
      [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/09/20-swbp-irc


          Ralph, Steven, Jeremy, Mark





      [4] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/16-swbp-minutes.html


     * Topics
         1. Convene, Review records
         2. Issues walkthrough
              1. QNames in href and about
              2. bnodes
     * Summary of Action Items


Convene, Review records

   Ralph: only TF participants who are WG participants are expected to
   attend the [11]Galway f2f but I expect that if Mark and Steven were
   interested in attending we wouldl make them welcome

     [11] http://sw.deri.org/2005/07/swbpd/

   [12]Previous meeting was 2005-08-16

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/16-swbp-minutes.html

Issues walkthrough

   -> [13]issues list

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

QNames in href and about

   Steven: add bnodes issue to current-issues
   ... from Hypertext CG, the suggestion came (from Bert Bos perhaps) to
   invent a URN to represent QNames

   Mark: we discussed this before. IPTC folk were not impressed by this
   ... IPTC wants to keep the identifiers as short as possible
   ... ideally they'd like to be able to carry forward their current
   identifiers unchanged
   ... ease-of-use is the foremost concern

   Steven: how can we know what really will be barriers to adoption?

   Mark: we'd need to register a naming authority for URN

   Steven: could do urn:iptc:...

   Ralph: so the RDF community would like IPTC to run a resolution
   service that essentially reinvents the http: resolution service

   Jeremy: there would also be an issue with name collision
   ... qnames allow relatively long URIs to be used in a concise way
   ... whereas URN or any other URI scheme has to deal with the fact that
   you're sharing a global identifier space hence URIs need to be long

   Mark: I came to the conclusion that we shouldn't touch qnames; that
   it's naughtly to use them in this way to represent every possible URI
   ... so rather than trying to make URIs and QNames co-exist in the same
   attribute and to loosen the syntax constraints on QNames, I proposed a
   new datatype CURI -- conmpact URI
   ... doesn't make any clames to be like a QName
   ... have discussed this with IPTC and they are supportive
   ... CURI syntax similar to common Wiki usage
   ... we would need two attributes to support such a mechanism; i.e. not
   squeeze both URI and QName into a single attribute

   <Steven> [14]Mark's compact URI proposal of 19 July

     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Jul/0019.html

   Ralph: has this proposal been discussed in any other forum?

   Steven: no, the HTML WG would likely think it outside their scope
   ... it could go to the Hypertext CG
   ... Bert Bos' comment came when I mentioned the CURI idea

   Jeremy: URNs do involve some sort of registry
   ... a compact URI scheme could have a short scheme component followed
   by a string to be substituted according to some application context
   ... could give the power of QNames without the syntactic overhead of
   it being an XML thing
   ... feels do-able but it would be a stretch to get a new URI scheme

   Steven: CURI doesn't propose a new URI scheme but rather a new
   datatype that is interpreted in a new way to produce a URI

   Mark: CURI doesn't solve the problem of making URIs and QNames coexist
   ... I'd like to see CURI along with square brackets used
   ... '[ ]' would denote CURIs so that legacy code stays the same

   Steven: perhaps this could be added in XHTML2; we're in control of our
   own datatypes
   ... as long as URIs are a subset it is backwards compatible
   ... and we add an interpretation rule for the attribute value enclosed
   in [..]

   Mark: there may be a precedent for something like this; an attribute
   that can take one of 2 values
   ... IPTC might not be happy even with square brackets

   Jeremy: could do just a leading character, e.g. '^'

   Mark: note that a CURI starting with a ':' is one without string
   substitution, so any URI becomes a CURI with a ':' prefix

   Steven: as long as old content looks the same and is interpreted the
   same we can add rules for new syntax

   Jeremy: all the URI schemes in the registry could be defined as
   ... any new URI schemes could be required to follow additional

   <jjc> xmlns:skype="skype:"

   Steven: I think we're best-off if we say only that new content is
   indicated in a different way

   Jeremy: I've recently been testing URI code and have found that it is
   difficult to write an illegal URI
   ... it's surprisingly tricky to break the URI syntax

   Mark: [our product] uses '{}' in some URIs and only recently I
   discovered a URI parser that throws these out
   ... if we went with Jeremy's leading-character proposal it could be
   viewed as a new class of URI schemes

   Jeremy: no, better to make the leading character indicate datatype

   Ralph: do you think IPTC would be more receptive to this
   leading-character proposal than to additional attributes?

   Mark: perhaps so

   <Steven> I think the colon looks good as initial character:

   <Steven> It also suggests an empty scheme

   <jjc> ":iptc:12345" is not a URI and hence is appropriate as a compact
   URI format

   Mark: looking at the examples in my 19 July email, the CURI proposal
   effectively codifies some existing practice
   ... whereas a new leading character is new practice
   ... e.g. anyone who uses joseki will be comfortable with joseki: being
   interpreted as a substitution

   Jeremy: I'm not advocating leading-character versus surrounding '[ ]
   ... strongly; just describing alternatives


   Jeremy: adopting the direction of the CURI idea; we could say that '_'
   is one of those schemes that denotes bnodes

   Mark: we still need to identify the node

   Jeremy: the ID suffices to identify the bnode

   <jjc> :_:1 vs [_:1]

   <Steven> I think href=":_:foo" looks fine

   <MarkB_> I think it looks too much like a 'scheme'.

   ACTION: JJC to review rdf concepts and fragments [recorded in

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action10

   <jjc> Jeremy said that rdf:about and rdf:href with bnode ":_:aa" is

   ACTION: Mark to check edge cases of inheritance in RDF/A [recorded in

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action06

   ACTION: All take a serious look at Mark's [$1\47]bnode proposal
   summary [recorded in

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action07

   ACTION: Ben to put together the "ACID" test for XHTML2 RDF/A [recorded
   in [18]http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action02]

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action02

   Mark: IPTC has a big meeting the end of October (week ending 29th)
   ... they'll be discussing their metadata syntax there
   ... I have a deadline of next Monday to produce a new RDF/A draft

   <jjc> [19]www.iptc.org

     [19] http://www.iptc.org/pages/index.php

   <Steven> 24 - 27 Oct 2005 IPTC Autumn Meeting in Milan (Italy)

   Ralph: can you share that document with the TF?

   Mark: yes, I believe so. After Monday I will send that document or an
   edited version to the TF

   next meeting: 27 Sep, 1400 UTC

Summary of Action Items

   ACTION: All take a serious look at Mark's [$1\47]bnode proposal
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action07]

   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]

   ACTION: JJC to review rdf concepts and fragments
   [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action10]

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

   [End of minutes]


    $Date: 2005/09/20 16:04:14 $
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2005 16:20:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:19 UTC