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

meeting record: 2005-09-27 RDF-in-XHTML TF telecon

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:52:22 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050928095148.03251ec0@127.0.0.1>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org


RDF-in-XHTML TF

27 Sep 2005

   [2]Agenda

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

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/09/27-swbp-irc

Attendees

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

   Regrets
          Mark Birbeck

   Chair
          Ralph

   Scribe
          Ben & Ralph

   Previous
          [9]2005-09-20

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

   Next Meeting
          Tuesday, 4 Oct, 1400 UTC

Contents

     * Topics
         1. issues walk-through
            . 1_qnames
            . 2_reification
            . 4_roleAttributes
         2. Action Review
         3. f2f plans
     * [8]Summary of Action Items

     _________________________________________________________________


issues walk-through

   1_qnames

   re: qnames in href and about

   steven: short version, last week discussed short datatype
   for href attribute

    ... CURI (compact URI). Solves a lot of problems, including
   IPTC desire for qnames in href, and may also solve bnode

   -> [11]Summary of qname/bnode proposal from last week [Jeremy]

     [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Sep/0022.html

   Jeremy: note that NCName also disallows leading digit

   Ben: would the specification of the href attribute [be changed to] be
   either a fully-qualified URI or one of these compact URIs?

   Steven: yes

   Ben: so it remains to be determined what a browser should do when it
   encounters a compact URI

   Ralph: so this compact URI idea takes care of both issues 1_qname and
   5_bnode

   Jeremy: we need some indication of whether this idea would be looked
   on favorably by the WGs?

   Steven: already asked HTML WG and no one complained

   Ben: does this resolve all of IPTC's issues? perhaps not
   3_customAttributes

   Jeremy: last week we worried that IPTC might feel even 1 character
   more is too many


   2_reification

   Jeremy: we don't yet have a sufficiently stable specification to
   update my XSLT
   ... in particular, I'm unclear about the inheritance rules
   ... currently I would be happy to not have support for reification in
   RDF/A

   <Steven> [12]meeting record: 2005-08-16 SWBPD HTML TF telecon

     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Aug/0010.html

   Jeremy: HP's position has been that reification should not be dropped
   from RDF, however

   <Steven> "Mark: in a new document I'm writing, I've been using the
   custom attribute shorthand rather extensively. I am looking also at
   reification and it seems that a good way to do this might be
   to allow META to specify an RDF Statement, then easy to talk about
   this  Statement. In early drafts of RDF/A META was like SPAN but
   now we're relying more on A+attributes so META can become more
   powerful"

   Ben: were HTML editors adding annotations a use case for reification?

   Jeremy: it's plausible that in such a use case -- who added this
   metadata and when -- you might use reification
   ... it's possible to use RDF/A to do reification but it's quite heavy
   ... I don't think we should make the RDF/A syntax uglier to support
   reification

   Ben: I want to check the reification question with Creative Commons
   ... for example, is it necessary to be able to say "who is making this
   claim" regarding a CC license

   Jeremy: for this specific use case, I'd suggest a vocabulary about
   license-making that includes who is assigning the license

   Ralph: Jeremy is proposing an application-specific mechanism rather
   than using a general mechanism

   Jeremy: I'm willing to address this specific CC use case

   ACTION: Jeremy consider Creative Commons 'who made this
   license' use case w.r.t. reification


   4_roleAttributes

   Ben: the idea was to define a chunk of a page that represented an RDF
   type

   ACTION: Ben to reconstruct action on role attribute with
   help of Danbri recorded in [14]http://www.w3.org/2005/09/27-swbp-irc]

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2005/09/27-swbp-irc#T14-28-08

   Steven: maybe it was the specific definition of xhtml2:role
   ... danbri was defining the rdf schema that included xhtml2:role

   <jeremy> Perhaps xhtml2:role rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:type rather than
   xhtml2:role owl:equivalentProperty rdf:type

   ACTION: Ralph and Ben to augment the issues list
   [recorded in [15]http://www.w3.org/2005/09/27-swbp-irc]

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2005/09/27-swbp-irc#T14-30-04

Action Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


f2f plans

   Ralph: Guus would like the TF to have a document for the F2F
   ... if not, do we close the task force

   Ben: working group charter ends when?

   Ralph: end of January
   ... Discussions have started on what subset of the WG needs
   an extension of charter
   ... also some suggestion that this TF may have made enough
   progress to migrate to the HTML WG.
   ... rolled into the XHTML2 effort
   ... personal opinion: there might still remain a liaison with SW

   Steven: we're very close to the end. Folding the TF into
   XHTML WG is fine by me.
   ... assuming we [HTML WG] will recharter, and liaison would be just
   fine

   Jeremy: HP Jena team would probably be involved in implementing
   RDF/A during CR


Summary of Action Items

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

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

   [NEW] ACTION: Ben to reconstruct action on role attribute with help of
   Danbri [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/27-swbp-irc#T14-28-08]

   [NEW] ACTION: Jeremy consider Creative Commons 'who made this license'
   use case w.r.t. reification

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

   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: 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]
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2005 13:53:09 GMT

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