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

meeting record: 2008-05-01 RDFa telecon

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 12:37:54 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20080501123531.04398fb0@127.0.0.1>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org

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

  [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html

Full text follows, for tracker.

----

                            RDF-in-XHTML TF

01 May 2008

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0158.html

   See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2008-04-24

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-irc
      [4] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html

Attendees

   Present
          Manu Sporny, Shane McCarron, Ralph Swick, Ben Adida, Mark
          Birbeck, Dan Brickley (guest)

   Regrets
          Michael Hausenblas, Simone Onofri, Steven Pemberton

   Chair
          Ben

   Scribe
          Ralph

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Action Items
         2. Implementation Report
         3. Test Cases
         4. ISSUE-113
         5. ISSUE-115
         6. ISSUE-104
     * Summary of Action Items
     _____________________________________________________


   <danbri> may I join?

   <danbri> trying to catchup on state of RDFa. Promise to listen/learn
   quietly...

   Ben: regarding issue 103, last week's discussion about issue 116
   seemed to touch on this

Action Items

   ACTION: [DONE] Manu to reply PFWG regarding ISSUE-114 [recorded in
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action11

   ACTION: [DONE] Michael to add a section to Wiki regarding ISSUE-114
   [recorded in
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action12

   ACTION: [DONE] Michael to reply to Elias and Lee regarding ISSUE-11
   [recorded in
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action13

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

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

   Ben: I talked with Fabien and Ivan in Beijing. No obstacles yet.

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

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

   Shane: I believe this action should be closed
   ... the XHTML WG has already responded to the TAG
   ... the XHTML2 WG resolved this 3 months ago

   Ben: I did chat with Tim in Beijing and he fully supports updating
   the XHTML1 namespace document

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

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

   ACTION: [DONE] Ben to respond to ISSUE-109 with (if possible)
   pointers to past discussion of @cite [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-minutes.html#action12

   <benadida> [20]my response

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0153.html

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

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

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

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action05

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

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

   ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded
   in [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
   [CONTINUES]

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

   ACTION: Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl. [recorded
   in [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
   [WITHDRAWN]

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

Implementation Report

   <benadida>[26]implementation-report

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/implementation-report/

   <danbri> (i wonder if [27]2008.xtech.org/public/schedule/detail/528
   is an implementation report; if implementors include publishers, and
   not only parser-writers)

     [27] http://2008.xtech.org/public/schedule/detail/528

   Shane: remember, we don't need the implementation report to _start_
   CR

   Ralph: yes, but we're hoping for a short CR so let's not let it slip

   Manu: does every implementation have to pass every test?

   Ralph: no, but every feature should be implemented by at least two
   ... and ideally there will be at least two implementations that do
   pass everything

   Ben: we can include every implementation in the report unless we
   lose touch with a developer and can't get responses to a test
   failure
   ... I do think there should be at least one javascript
   implementation in the report
   ... Elias is working on a javascript API for the test harness

Test Cases

   Ben: status of tests?

   Manu: there are only two pending; let's defer this to next telecon

   Manu: I'm not aware of any new tests entering the pipeline

   Mark: change made in Shane's CVS repository, will be in the next
   editors' draft he publishes

ISSUE-113

   <benadida> [28]issue 113

     [28] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/113

   -> [29]previous discussion

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#item06

   Manu: the resolution boiled down to "we don't specify this"
   ... Shane pointed out that the meaning of a fragment may change
   entirely when put into another document

   Ben: it's possible to write a chunk of XHTML+RDFa that will preserve
   its meaning across documents

   Shane: I disagree; in the context of this document we have no formal
   definition of the behaviour

   Ben: in Creative Commons use case we specify a fragment that means
   what the author _intends_ it to mean when pasted into any document

   <danbri> (blogged/syndicated markup is another common scenario)

   Ralph: but the subject of the triple changes

   Ben: yes, that's why I said "intended to mean"
   ... in the Use Case document we do talk about fragments, e.g. of
   widgets
   ... how should we acknowledge this?

   Manu: in the wiki perhaps?

   Mark: at the top of the processing rules section there's something
   that talks about _usually_ starting at the root
   ... we could make this explicit

   Ralph: I disagree that we should specify the interpretation of a
   parsed fragment

   Mark: it's very easy to say "here is the context, begin parsing"
   ... not saying we need to spell out how to do it
   ... just that it's possible to answer Micah's point

   Ben: I'll try to craft a short non-normative paragraph

   <danbri> ([30]NOTE-webarch-extlang#Local articulates something like
   this requirement)

     [30] http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-webarch-extlang#Local

   Mark: the searchmonkey documentation mentions "dataRSS"
   ... in there you'll find @resource and a statement that "this is
   RDFa inside dataRSS"
   ... I hope Ben's paragraph will be sympathetic to this

   <msporny> +1 to draft small paragraph

   ACTION: Ben draft a non-normative paragraph on RDFa fragments for
   review [recorded in
   [31]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]

   Ralph: but issue 113 asks for processing rules that apply when there
   is no <head> nor <body> and we're _not_ going to do that

   Mark: Micah also asks that we "mention the possibility"
   ... we can mention the possibility without describing normative
   behaviour

ISSUE-115

   -> [32]issue 115; @content

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/115

   Ben: PFWG's concern is that any markup in the element content is
   lost when @content is added

   <benadida> [33]my response

     [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0032.html

   <benadida> "I like the idea of emphasizing this point, that @content
   should be used

   <benadida> as a "last resort," and we'll discuss it in the group."

   Ralph: the point of @content was to override element content when
   it's necessary to do so
   ... if the author mis-uses this, then, well ...

   Ben: but should we change anything in the spec?

   Mark: we have discussed having multiple versions; could have two
   objects
   ... we don't have this multiple value approach anywhere else and
   shouldn't have it here

   <ShaneM> "Note that the use of @content prohibits the inclusion of
   rich markup in your content. It is a tool of last resort. If the
   inline content of an element is meaningful, then documents should
   rely upon that rather than duplicating that content using the
   @content attribute."

   Mark: this feature also allows a distinction between XMLLiteral and
   plain literal

   <msporny> +1 for Shane's wording...

   Shane: I think we could put guidance such as the above in the
   document

   Mark: I object to "tool of last resort". There are use cases where
   the thing you want in the human-readable part is different from what
   you want in the machine-readable part

   Ben: the point is that if the value can be rendered on screen, then
   don't use @content
   ... Bob Ducharme used to show examples where everything in the HEAD
   was hidden on-screen and I think we want to discourage this practice

   <ShaneM> "Note that the use of @content prohibits the inclusion of
   rich markup in your content. If the inline content of an element is
   what you are trying to convey, then documents should rely upon that
   rather than duplicating that content using the @content attribute."

   Ralph: I'd be satisfied with Shane's paragraph with the "tool of
   last resort" sentence dropped.

   <markbirbeck> oops...just remembered that Steven asked me to give
   his apologies!

   <markbirbeck> Very sorry... :)

   <benadida> PROPOSE to resolve ISSUE-115 by adding a short
   non-normative paragraph approximately as follows "Note that the use
   of @content prohibits the inclusion of rich markup in your content.
   If the inline content of an element is what you are trying to
   convey, then documents should rely upon that rather than duplicating
   that content using the @content attribute."

   <Ralph:> +1

   <msporny> +1

   <markbirbeck> +1

   RESOLUTION: ISSUE-115 closed by adding a short non-normative
   paragraph approximately as follows "Note that the use of @content
   prohibits the inclusion of rich markup in your content. If the
   inline content of an element is what you are trying to convey, then
   documents should rely upon that rather than duplicating that content
   using the @content attribute."

   ACTION: Shane update editors' draft with the resolution to issue 115
   [recorded in
   [34]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]

   ACTION: Ben respond to the commenters on issue 115 [recorded in
   [35]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]

ISSUE-104

   <benadida> [36]issue 104

     [36] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/104

   PROPOSE propose to copy the datatype definition from
   [37]WD-curie-20080402/#s_schema

     [37] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-curie-20080402/#s_schema

   <msporny> +1

   RESOLUTION: Copy the CURIE datatype definition from
   [38]WD-curie-20080402/#s_schema

     [38] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-curie-20080402/#s_schema

   Shane: the XHTML2 WG had a comment that the correct name is
   URIorSafeCURIE, not URIorCURIE

   Ben: with '[]' it's a SafeCURIE so it's just a wording change

   RESOLUTION: change the wording from URIorCURIE to URIorSafeCURIE

   <markbirbeck> [39]http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#sec_6.3.1.

     [39] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#sec_6.3.1.

   Mark: back on @content ...
   ... should we use inline markup everywhere whenever we can and
   minimize use of @content?
   ... e.g. use something other than META?

   Ralph: some of the @content examples have other pedagogical uses and
   I wouldn't want to do a wholesale replacement
   ... and about the "small" changes to the processing rules for
   keeping "useless" nodes?

   Mark: they're in the CVS and will be in the next editors' draft

   ACTION: Ben send announcement of @instanceof change and diffs to
   processing rules [recorded in
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html#action16]

   Ben: I'll take a look at the timeline in the wiki
   ... the SWD timeline sent on Tuesday should be easy for us to meet

   Ralph: regrets for next week

   Mark: also regrets for next week

   <markbirbeck> There is only one use of @content that should use
   inline text, and it's in Appendix A.

   <ShaneM> Appendix A? really? Appendix A is the DTD implementation
   isn't it?

   <markbirbeck> (I mention that to save people doing a scan.)

   <ShaneM> oh.... that appendix A. didn't we remove that?

   <ShaneM> we voted to remove that appendix. It is no longer in the
   source.

   <ShaneM> Sorry - fell off the call and can't call back in.
   conference is restricted.

   <Ralph> yeah, in fact Appendix A should use <h1 about=""
   property="dc:title">Internet Applications</h1>

   [adjourned]

   <Ralph> (thanks, Mark; I'm happy with your conclusion :)

   <ShaneM> I have to go anyway. Ben, do you want me to publish right
   now, or wait until you have reviewed Mark's mail from last night?

   <ShaneM> I have made the changes you requested during the call
   already.

   <benadida> no publish right now.

   <benadida> no, COMMA, publish right now :)_

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Ben draft a non-normative paragraph on RDFa fragments
   for review [recorded in
   [41]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
   [NEW] ACTION: Ben respond to the commenters on issue 115 [recorded
   in [42]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]
   [NEW] ACTION: Ben send announcement of @instanceof change and diffs
   to processing rules [recorded in
   [43]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html#action16]
   [NEW] ACTION: Shane update editors' draft with the resolution to
   issue 115 [recorded in
   [44]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/01-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]

   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben followup with Fabien on getting his RDFa GRDDL
   transform transferred to W3C [recorded in
   [45]http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in
   [46]http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness
   [recorded in
   [47]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative
   section [recorded in
   [48]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action05]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki
   [recorded in
   [49]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]

     [45] http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01
     [46] http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09
     [47] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13
     [48] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action05
     [49] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12

   [DONE] ACTION: Ben to respond to ISSUE-109 with (if possible)
   pointers to past discussion of @cite [recorded in
   [50]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
   [DONE] ACTION: Manu to reply PFWG regarding ISSUE-114 [recorded in
   [51]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
   [DONE] ACTION: Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes
   section [recorded in
   [52]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
   [DONE] ACTION: Michael to add a section to Wiki regarding ISSUE-114
   [recorded in
   [53]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
   [DONE] ACTION: Michael to reply to Elias and Lee regarding ISSUE-11
   [recorded in
   [54]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]

     [50] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
     [51] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action11
     [52] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11
     [53] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
     [54] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html#action13

   [DROPPED] ACTION: Ben to follow up on media type discussion with
   Steven, Ralph, and TAG [recorded in
   [55]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
   [DROPPED] ACTION: Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl.
   [recorded in
   [56]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]

     [55] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action08
     [56] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07

   [End of minutes]
     _____________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [57]scribe.perl version 1.133
    ([58]CVS log)
    $Date: 2008/05/01 16:35:43 $

     [57] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [58] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2008 16:38:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 May 2008 16:38:42 GMT