W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > April 2008

meeting record: 2008-04-03 RDF-in-XHTML TF

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:55:01 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20080403145210.04afad50@127.0.0.1>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, public-swd-wg@w3.org

The minutes of today's RDFa telecon [1] are ready for review.

  [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html

A text snapshot of the revision of  $Date: 2008/04/03 18:51:56 $ follows.

----

                        RDF-in-XHTML Task Force

03 Apr 2008

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0026.html

   See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2008-03-27

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-irc
      [4] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html

Attendees

   Present
          Shane McCarron, Ralph Swick, Steven Pemberton, Manu Sporny,
          Ben Adida, Mark Birbeck

   Regrets
   Chair
          Ben

   Scribe
          Ralph

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Action Review
         2. ISSUE-102: use a name other than @instanceof
         3. ISSUE-101: garbage-collecting useless triples (or not?)
     * Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   Ben: propose not to discuss TAG's feedback on CURIEs here in this
   telecon

   Ben: TAG's feedback is directed to XHTML2 WG and not RDFa

Action Review

   ACTION: Ben and Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl.
   [recorded in
   [10]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
   [CONTINUES]

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07

   ACTION: [DONE] Ben to ask Shane about DOCTYPE and validation.
   [recorded in
   [11]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]

     [11] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action10

   Ben: we were talking about changing 'SHOULD have a DOCTYPE' to 'MAY
   have a DOCTYPE'

   Ben: Shane made the point that 'SHOULD' is already optional, so why
   change anything?

   Manu: SHOULD is stronger than MAY
   ... it says "you really really should do this unless you have a good
   reason not to'

   Shane: we're saying that if you want to validate your document you
   SHOULD have a DOCTYPE

   <Steven> But don't we use the DOCTYPE for follow your nose?

   Ben: what if in the next year the W3C validater no longer requires
   DOCTYPE?
   ... do we make our spec dependent on the current state of
   validation?

   <Steven> How about: SHOULD use a DOCTYPE, but if not then
   version="XHTML+RDFa 1.0"

   Mark: SHOULD has wiggle room

   Shane: MAY is a very strange thing to say when you're talking about
   document conformance
   ... MAY is used to talk about implementation conformance

   Ben: I think we should leave it as SHOULD
   ... and possibly add a note commenting about validation

   <Steven> I am happy with either

   Ralph: what does XHTML1 say about DOCTYPE?

   Shane: DOCTYPE is required in XHTML 1.1 and SHOULD in XHTML 1.1 2nd
   edition

   Ben: so we shouldn't weaken the requirements from the host language
   ... our response to Tim can point to the host language

   <msporny> +1 for SHOULD

   <Steven> I wish there were an alternative for defining character
   entities

   <benadida> PROPOSE: that we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as
   follows 'SHOULD leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no
   longer requires DOCTYPE'

   <ShaneM> And also point out that "SHOULD" is optional already.

   <msporny> +1

   Steven: do we want to say that if there is no DOCTYPE then there
   must be @version="XHTML+RDFa"

   Ralph: no. I thought we agreed last week that we'd update the
   namespace document

   Shane: no objection to updating the namespace document but it does
   nothing for announcement
   ... what does something for announcement is if we agree that all
   XHTML languages have these new attributes
   ... and that has impact outside the XHTML2 WG

   Steven: I think we're capable of changing the namespace document
   ... we could even turn the namespace document into an RDFa document

   <benadida> PROPOSE: that we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as
   follows 'SHOULD leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no
   longer requires DOCTYPE', that we *not* require HTML version=, and
   that we update the XHTML namespace document accordingly.

   <Steven> +1

   RESOLUTION: we respond to TimBL regarding DOCTYPE as follows 'SHOULD
   leaves enough wiggle room for when validation no longer requires
   DOCTYPE', that we *not* require HTML version=, and that we update
   the XHTML namespace document accordingly.

   ACTION: [DONE] Manu correct test 11 [recorded in
   [12]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action12

   ACTION: [DONE] Mark to double check the _:a bnode notation in RDFa
   syntax [recorded in
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action11

   Mark: done during last week's call
   ... Shane noted that it was not mentioned anywhere but then we found
   it

   Shane: it's mentioned in an informative section and should be moved
   up to the normative processing rules

   Mark: you have to piece together information from 3 parts

   ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section
   [recorded in
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action05]

   ACTION: Ben followup with Fabien on getting his RDFa GRDDL transform
   transferred to W3C [recorded in
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
   [CONTINUES]

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01

   Ben: Fabien did update his transform but it's not yet under W3C
   software license on the W3C site

   ACTION: Ben to follow up on media type discussion with Steven,
   Ralph, and TAG [recorded in
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
   [CONTINUES]

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action08

   ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in
   [17]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
   [CONTINUES]

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09

   ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
   [CONTINUES]

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13

   Manu: almost done. I have to respond to some comments from DanC

   ACTION: Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes section
   [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
   [CONTINUES]

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11

   ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded
   in [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
   [CONTINUES]

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12

ISSUE-102: use a name other than @instanceof

   -> [21]issue 102

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/102

   <benadida> [22]Last Call Comment: Better name than 'instanceof' is
   needed [John Boyer 2008-03-17]

     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0211.html

   Ben: poll around the table?

   Steven: I'm in favor of a new name. I posted a list of ~50. I didn't
   propose a favorite

   Mark: [each of us] needs to argue in favor of one position

   Steven: I'd be happy with @kind

   Ben: from mail, @kind and @typeof seem to be bubbling up high

   Steven: @typeof has the same prior use issues that @instanceof had

   Mark: lots of suggestions have been made and each has had problems.
   ... I think @instanceof is fine
   ... the only alternative that works for me is @typeof
   ... people know what "type" means even if they're not fully
   conversant in set theory

   Manu: @typeof
   ... I consider how easy it is to explain to a normal Web developer
   ... I've never really liked @instanceof

   <Steven> <p contains="cal:Vevent">

   Ralph: @typeof feels like the wrong relationship direction to me
   from an RDF point of view
   ... but I don't feel strongly between @instanceof and @typeof
   ... I think we could justify either

   Shane: @typeof is OK with me

   Steven: we're addressing the microformats crowd
   ... it's nice if the words suggest something without having to refer
   to RDF concepts

   Mark: but we should be careful not to say something that's wrong in
   the world of RDF concepts
   ... e.g. 'contains' doesn't have an RDF interpretation

   Ben: both @kind and @typeof are superior to @instanceof
   ... I'm ok with @typeof but single-word things are nice
   ... @kind is less likely to receive complaints
   ... and telling people it's 'kind like mankind'

   <Ralph> [Personkind :) ]

   Mark: I don't doubt that @kind can be explained
   ... and isn't this very close to the Germanic ?
   ... do we even want to have to send the one-line 'kind like mankind'
   mail?
   ... I think @kind would generate more questions than @typeof

   Steven: I prefer @typeof to @instanceof

   PROPOSE: change @instanceof to @typeof

   <msporny> +1

   <Ralph> no objection

   <ShaneM> +1

   <markbirbeck> +1

   <benadida> +1

   <Steven> abstain

   RESOLUTION: change @instanceof to @typeof

   ACTION: Mark and Shane update Syntax to change @instanceof to
   @typeof [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]

   ACTION: Manu update test cases to change @instanceof to @typeof
   [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]

   <Steven> I abstain because I think it is a bad choice, but I don't
   expect anything I suggest will gain traction, since I've already
   tried so many

   Ben: does this require another Last Call?

   Ralph: if we believe there will be objections then it's less costly
   to do another Last Call than to discover objections in CR

   Shane: we should get Yahoo!'s feedback

   <ShaneM> I would like to see a new test case that uses @instanceof
   and should fail

   ACTION: Ben write to Micah for feedback on change to @typeof
   [recorded in
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]

ISSUE-101: garbage-collecting useless triples (or not?)

   -> [26]issue 101

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/101

   Ben: "late binding" is better terminology than "garbage collection",
   as Shane noted

   <ShaneM> I have to leave, but for the record I am in favor of
   generating these triples even if they are meaningless. Or rather, I
   don't mind either way.

   [Shane departs]

   Mark: the irony is frustrating as it only comes from Ivan's notes
   ... it was purely by chance that I discovered that by moving
   something outside of the recursion we could eliminate these triples
   ... this came as a side-effect of fixing a bug uncovered during SWD
   WG review
   ... it's incorrect to say this is impossible to handle this in XSLT
   ... I am, however, worried about introducing other problems if we
   change this

   Ben: my parser is conformant in every way except this one; I've just
   never made this change

   Manu: I prefer keeping the current rule set as is
   ... I don't see a use case for all these nested @rels
   ... I don't see a use case for building up triples with all these
   meaningless bnodes
   ... I don't see sufficient benefits to this change

   Mark: while I agree with Manu, there's an opposing view
   ... one of the consequences of the error that I fixed is that when
   there are multiple @property as the child of a hanging triple you
   repeat the hanging thing
   ... you could argue that if we're leaving things as they are then
   it's not a big leap to asking us to eliminate all redundant triples
   ... I wonder if we're setting ourselves up to something
   ... it may be more honest to admit there's stuff lying around

   Ben: it could seem inconsistent to keep this flag here to get rid of
   redundant triples yet keep duplicate triples elsewhere

   Steven: I don't have a strong feeling either way

   Ralph: I'm concerned that if we make this change we should do more
   testing

   Ben: if this is an issue that is really needling a few people and it
   takes us a few weeks to test, that seems reasonable to me

   Mark: the extra complexity in the rules is not to do with this issue
   but to deal with a bug in the recursion spotted by the SWD review
   ... I noted that my fix to the recursion could also address
   something Ivan noted

   Ben: the complexity may just be a perception
   ... taking 3 weeks to resolve this may be worthwhile

   Mark: the completion of incomplete triples can be made conditional
   ... could make a tiny change to always complete triples
   ... this might have less risk of new bugs but wouldn't produce a big
   simplification

   Manu: we should be very careful about why we're making this change
   ... and I don't see that a change here will reduce the complexity of
   the rules
   ... the only argument [that persuades me] is that people will be
   building up their triples in this particular way by creating lots of
   bnodes
   ... if it doesn't simplify the rules then it won't simplify the
   implmentation

   Ben: but we have an explicit comment from Micah to that effect

   Mark: but [Micah's comment] mis-identifies where the complexity is
   coming from
   ... Micah is seeing the recursion as complex in order to get rid of
   extra triples
   ... but the recursion is there to handle intervening markup
   ... my reference to 'extra triples' in the spec is misleading people
   to think that's the reason for the recursion

   <Steven> Regrets for next week

   <Steven> gotta go

   [Steven departs]

   Mark: I still think it's an easy change but as we all know, any
   change brings a risk of introducing new bugs

   Ralph: and I'm ok with 3 weeks to test if we believe the change is
   useful

   Ben: I'm also ok with 3 weeks
   ... I feel strongly that this could be misleading
   ... my concern was always about authors and what could be confusing
   to them
   ... DanBri seems to think this is actually wrong
   ... Steven and Shane don't seem to feel strongly either way

   Mark: if there's no other reason to repeat Last Call, I'd leave the
   spec as is

   Ralph: I'm mostly concerned about leaving adequate testing time if
   we make this change
   ... in particular, we won't likely get a new cleanroom
   implementation

   Ben: I'm willing to do a new cleanroom implementation

   Manu: I don't see a strong reason to change
   ... but adding 3 weeks to the schedule bothers me

   [Mark departs]

   <benadida> [27]Last Call Comment: garbage collecting "useless"
   triples [Ivan 2008-03-20]

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0256.html

   PROPOSED: Modify processing rules per ISSUE-101 to process and
   produce triples consisting of only bnodes

   Ralph: Shane and Mark seem to lean on the side of keeping the
   triples
   ... Steven seems to be abstaining
   ... I'm ok with the change if Ben does a cleanroom implementation
   and we add time to test

   <benadida> +1 to proposal

   <msporny> +1, only if the group is okay with extending testing for
   another 3-4 weeks and Ben has a cleanroom implementation. I don't
   particularly agree that the change is helpful, but others feel that
   this will help authors.

   RESOLUTION: Modify processing rules per ISSUE-101 to process and
   produce triples consisting of only bnodes

   Ralph: we don't actually know if Steven, Mark, and Shane agree to
   the +3 weeks so they'll have to object if that's the case

   [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Ben write to Micah for feedback on change to @typeof
   [recorded in
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
   [NEW] ACTION: Manu update test cases to change @instanceof to
   @typeof [recorded in
   [29]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
   [NEW] ACTION: Mark and Shane update Syntax to change @instanceof to
   @typeof [recorded in
   [30]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
   [NEW] ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section
   [recorded in
   [31]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action05]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben and Ralph to review response to Christian
   Hoertnagl. [recorded in
   [32]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben followup with Fabien on getting his RDFa GRDDL
   transform transferred to W3C [recorded in
   [33]http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to follow up on media type discussion with
   Steven, Ralph, and TAG [recorded in
   [34]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in
   [35]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness
   [recorded in
   [36]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes
   section [recorded in
   [37]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki
   [recorded in
   [38]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07
     [33] http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01
     [34] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action08
     [35] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09
     [36] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13
     [37] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11
     [38] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12

   [DONE] ACTION: Ben to ask Shane about DOCTYPE and validation.
   [recorded in
   [39]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]
   [DONE] ACTION: Manu correct test 11 [recorded in
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
   [DONE] ACTION: Mark to double check the _:a bnode notation in RDFa
   syntax [recorded in
   [41]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]

     [39] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action10
     [40] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
     [41] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action11

   [End of minutes]
     _____________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [42]scribe.perl version 1.133
    ([43]CVS log)
    $Date: 2008/04/03 18:51:56 $
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 18:55:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:27 UTC