W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > June 2009

Re: meeting record: 2009-06-04 RDFa Task Force

From: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:21:17 +0200
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.uu0ilrs6smjzpq@steven-750g>
I also sent regrets.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jun/0012.html

Steven

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:15:54 +0200, Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org> wrote:

> The minutes of today's RDF-in-XHTML Task Force meeting are now
> available as
>
>    http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html
>
> A text snapshot follows.
>
> ----
>
>    [1]W3C
>
>       [1] http://www.w3.org/
>
>                         RDF in XHTML Task Force
>
> 04 Jun 2009
>
>    [2]Agenda
>
>       [2]  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jun/0010.html
>
>    See also: [3]IRC log, previous [4]2009-05-28
>
>       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-irc
>       [4] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html
>
> Attendees
>
>    Present
>           Shane McCarron, Manu Sporny, Sam Ruby, Ralph Swick
>
>    Regrets
>           Ben Adida, Michael Hausenblas, Mark Birbeck
>
>    Chair
>           Manu
>
>    Scribe
>           Ralph, Manu
>
> Contents
>
>      * Topics
>          1. Action Review
>          2. issue-214
>          3. Copyright for W3C Test Suites
>          4. Discussion order for HTML+RDFa issues
>          5. Start "Target of RDFa Processing Rules" discussion
>      * Summary of Action Items
>      _____________________________________________________
>
> Action Review
>
>    ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ben to author wiki page with charter template
>    for RDFa IG. Manu to provide support where needed. [recorded in
>    [12]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]
>
>      [12] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action10
>
>    <msporny> [13]http://rdfa.info/wiki/Rdfa-ig-charter
>
>      [13] http://rdfa.info/wiki/Rdfa-ig-charter
>
>    ACTION: [DONE] Manu to go through and categorize issues and
>    requirements that we should address going forward. [recorded in
>    [14]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
>
>      [14] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
>
>    <msporny>
>    [15]http://rdfa.info/wiki/Rdfa-in-html-issues#RDFa_Task_Force_Discus
>    sion_Order
>
>      [15]  
> http://rdfa.info/wiki/Rdfa-in-html-issues#RDFa_Task_Force_Discussion_Order
>
>    ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph make a request for an RDFa issue tracker
>    instance [recorded in
>    [16]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
>
>      [16] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action11
>
>    ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ben to put up information on "how to write RDFa"
>    with screencast possibly and instructions on bookmarklet. [recorded
>    in [17]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
>
>      [17] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
>
>    ACTION: [CONTINUES] Manu to write summary for Semantic Web Use Cases
>    for Ivan. [recorded in
>    [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
>
>      [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09
>
>    ACTION: [CONTINUES] Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning
>    [recorded in
>    [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
>
>      [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
>
>    ACTION: [CONTINUES] Mark to send Ben ubiquity related wizard stuff
>    [recorded in
>    [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
>
>      [20] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action11
>
>    ACTION: [CONTINUES] Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in
>    [21]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
>
>      [21] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13
>
>    ACTION: [CONTINUES] Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa
>    Wiki [recorded in
>    [22]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
>
>      [22] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14
>
>    ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph or Steven fix the .htaccess for the XHTML
>    namespace [recorded in
>    [23]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
>
>      [23] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action01
>
>    ACTION: [CONTINUES] Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in
>    [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]
>
>      [24] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15
>
> issue-214
>
>    <Ralph> [25]issue-214
>
>      [25] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/214
>
>    Ralph: This issue was a comment that came during the SKOS Candidate
>    Rec period.
>    ... The WG decided that it was more of an editorial question for
>    RDFa TF to consider.
>    ... There has been a long thread over several years, Ben's aware of
>    the thread...
>
>    Ralph: We should consider providing community advice in the case
>    where the same URI might be a piece of an RDF vocabulary or a target
>    in an HTML document.
>    ... In the case where the mimetype of the document is HTML, or
>    application/rdf+xml
>    ... in the case of RDFa, it's not so clear that an application can
>    disambiguate between the two types of documents.
>    ... You should not use the same URI for the name in an HTML document
>    as well as a term in an RDF vocabulary.
>    ... People shouldn't do <p id="foo" about="#foo">
>
>    ShaneM: I disagree
>    ... The whole point of RDFa is to embed things in this way.
>    ... I have a URI, which is interpreted in the context of the HTTP
>    request header.
>    ... A semantic web application will follow-your-nose that should
>    take you to the definition of a vocabulary item.
>    ... I'm going to prefer xml+rdf
>    ... from a content negotiation perspective, the server should send
>    back what the requester wants.
>    ... If the request is rdf+xml, then it should extract the triples
>    from the XHTML document and send those back as rdf+xml.
>
>    Ralph: Interesting point.
>    ... The old advice might not matter as much anymore?
>    ... Eric Prudhommeaux might have something to say about this.
>
>    Ralph: there might be use cases where the subject of a triple might
>    well want to be a particular bit of HTML markup
>
>    Manu: might be something to handle in a validator
>
>    Manu: people might do id='foo' and about='foo' when they're doing
>    vocabulary authoring
>    ... it's nice to be able to drop a vocabulary term into a Web
>    browser and see a document
>
>    Ralph: How can we say something about the ID "foo" <p id="foo"
>    about="#foo"> and not the about="#foo"
>
>    Shane: and XML requires something of type ID in order for the
>    fragment to be valie
>    ... in general, id='foo' about='foo' always occurs when you want to
>    bind triples to a block in a document
>    ... particularly in definitions of terms
>    ... when referring to a local definition of a term you'd have an ID
>    and you'd bind to it using @about
>    ... you might also refer to it in @resource
>
>    Manu: maybe we should create a Wiki page and develop a best practice
>    in this area
>
>    ACTION: Manu create a wiki page for discussion of issue-214
>    [recorded in
>    [26]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
>
> Copyright for W3C Test Suites
>
>    Shane: looking for advice on what are acceptable test suite
>    copyrights
>
>    Manu: specifically, is the MIT license sufficient?
>
>    ACTION: Ralph find the statement on test suite copyright [recorded
>    in [27]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
>
>    <rubys> in general, MIT licensed code can be pulled into almost any
>    codebase; the reverse is not necessarily true
>
> Discussion order for HTML+RDFa issues
>
>    <msporny>
>    [28]http://rdfa.info/wiki/rdfa-in-html-issues#RDFa_Task_Force_Discus
>    sion_Order
>
>      [28]  
> http://rdfa.info/wiki/rdfa-in-html-issues#RDFa_Task_Force_Discussion_Order
>
>    Manu: I'd taken action to propose a discussion order
>
>    Sam: suggest moving " Requirement: RDFa signalling mechanism for
>    XHTML+RDFa, HTML+RDFa, and how does mime-type affect that
>    mechanism?" higher
>    ... figure out what the signalling mechanism is
>    ... html served as text/xml is interpreted differently by different
>    browsers
>
>    Manu: propose to move the signalling discussion after "target of
>    RDFa processing rules" and before "Do we need to cut features from
>    RDFa to support HTML+RDFa?"
>
>    Shane: fine with me
>    ... some of these items have been raised in email but I'm not
>    persuaded they're really issues
>
>    Manu: so move "RDFa signalling mechanism" to 2nd position
>
>    Ralph: ok with me
>
>    <rubys> if they aren't really issues, they should be able to be
>    disposed of quickly.
>
> Start "Target of RDFa Processing Rules" discussion
>
>    <msporny>
>    [29]http://rdfa.info/wiki/rdfa-in-html-issues#The_target_of_RDFa_pro
>    cessing_rules
>
>      [29]  
> http://rdfa.info/wiki/rdfa-in-html-issues#The_target_of_RDFa_processing_rules
>
>    Manu: question is "on what do the RDFa processing rules operate?"
>    ... e.g. on a DOM structure [or not]
>    ... now we're trying to explain how this works across all languages
>    ... and generate the same triples across all document [types]
>    ... gets tricky when accounting for serialization issues
>    ... goal is to find a set of rules that works on a parse tree or an
>    abstract syntax tree rather than on a DOM
>    ... so define the rules in a way not based on serialization of a
>    specific language
>
>    Shane: Mark has a clever way of thinking about this
>    ... and is very persuasive :)
>    ... as I understand it, Mark's model is that RDFa is at the
>    application layer so whatever the underlying layer provides to the
>    application is what should be worked on
>    ... this solves the RDFa specification problem but doesn't solve the
>    "I want the same triples when I give the same document content to
>    different things"
>    ... I don't see how we can control the structure of the _input_ to
>    RDFa in a meaningful way
>    ... will happen differently in legacy browsers, HTML5, new browsers,
>    etc.
>    ... I'm not optimistic that we'll find a way to guarantee the same
>    triples everywhere
>
>    Sam: if we can find a subset that _does_ give the same triples and
>    note the other cases with a recommendation not to to those
>    ... can't assume that the consumer respects the well-formed input
>    requirement
>    ... this requirement is routinely ignored
>
>    Shane: ignored by user agents but not by tool chain processors
>
>    Sam: wise to accept that some people will be processing this in
>    browsers and give advice on what won't work there
>
>    Shane: I do think we can restrict the language so that it has more
>    predictable behaviours under different processing models
>
>    Sam: e.g. if a single document has two names that differ only in
>    case, that's probably wierd and don't do it
>
>    Shane: yep, we just never considered that case in our prior
>    discussions
>
>    Manu: the test cases put on the mailing list are really good
>    starting points
>    ... we should be clear about what model the RDFa rules are operating
>    on but I do not see a reason to strip out any rules
>    ... Mark's position is that we can't control the input to the RDFa
>    processing rules
>    ... we can't control how things get put into a DOM; that's in the
>    domain of the HTML WG
>    ... so the RDFa processing rules ought to be restated in terms of
>    _some_ incoming model
>    ... RDFa might be used in something that has nothing to do with a
>    DOM
>    ... not a good idea to restrict RDFa to just a DOM
>    ... if you run an HTML document through two different processors,
>    one producing a DOM and the other not then I don't see how we can
>    guarantee in all cases to produce the same triples
>
>    <rubys> I agree with DOM as the answer to question #1... the problem
>    is that Drupal is producing content with RDFa, and depending on the
>    user agent, it may be processed differently. If you look at
>    Phillip's tests there will be cases where they answers will differ,
>    and some of these can't be solved. In some cases, the answer may be
>    "don't do that". Example: if you define an XML literal and serve the
>    content as text/html, be sure that you don't define any content that
>    HTML5 processing rules will reorder or change in a way that can't be
>    addressed by the parser.
>
>    Manu: they _might_ be the same in some cases but I don't think we
>    should try to guarantee the same triples in all cases
>
>    Shane: from personal experience, some of our tests produced foreign
>    elements that were removed from the DOM tree I was handed
>
>    Shane: I don't have control over this; I can only work on what I'm
>    handed
>
>    Manu: can we come up with an example that shows how a well-formed
>    document would generate different triples?
>
>    Shane: comes up when embedding foreign stuff, e.g. SVG -- the SVG
>    simply doesn't show up in the DOM
>    ... there could be RDFa annotations on the SVG but I've lost them
>
>    <msporny> Thanks for joining us Sam :)
>
>    <msporny> and for your input.
>
>    Shane: the XML literal case may well be the most glaring example
>    ... there are several ways to address this and I don't have a strong
>    preference for which we pick
>    ... I sort-of like Mark's suggestion to change the default to not be
>    an XML literal
>    ... so you'd only produce an XML literal in a triple when you
>    explicitly ask for one
>
>    Manu: the side-effect of making it not automatically an XML literal
>    is that it will process the content
>    ... e.g. <spam about='foo'> inside the content would cause triples
>    to be generated
>
>    Shane: that's probably a corner case
>    ... easier to change behavior sooner than later
>
>    Manu: the reason for a change is to make XML literals the same
>    between HTML and XHTML
>    ... but there's a parallel discussion suggesting that it may be OK
>    for the triples to differ given different input
>
>    Shane: the core issue here is whether it makes any sense to generate
>    XML literals in a non-XML context
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
>    [NEW] ACTION: Manu create a wiki page for discussion of issue-214
>    [recorded in
>    [30]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
>    [NEW] ACTION: Ralph find the statement on test suite copyright
>    [recorded in
>    [31]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
>
>    [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to author wiki page with charter template for
>    RDFa IG. Manu to provide support where needed. [recorded in
>    [32]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action10]
>    [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to put up information on "how to write RDFa"
>    with screencast possibly and instructions on bookmarklet. [recorded
>    in [33]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
>    [PENDING] ACTION: Manu to write summary for Semantic Web Use Cases
>    for Ivan. [recorded in
>    [34]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
>    [PENDING] ACTION: Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning
>    [recorded in
>    [35]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
>    [PENDING] ACTION: Mark to send Ben ubiquity related wizard stuff
>    [recorded in
>    [36]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
>    [PENDING] ACTION: Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in
>    [37]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
>    [PENDING] ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki
>    [recorded in
>    [38]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14]
>    [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph make a request for an RDFa issue tracker
>    instance [recorded in
>    [39]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
>    [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph or Steven fix the .htaccess for the XHTML
>    namespace [recorded in
>    [40]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
>    [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in
>    [41]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15]
>
>      [32] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action10
>      [33] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
>      [34] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09
>      [35] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
>      [36] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action11
>      [37] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13
>      [38] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14
>      [39] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action11
>      [40] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action01
>      [41] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15
>
>    [DONE] ACTION: Manu to go through and categorize issues and
>    requirements that we should address going forward. [recorded in
>    [42]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
>
>      [42] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action12
>
>    [End of minutes]
>      _____________________________________________________
>
>
>     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [43]scribe.perl version 1.135
>     ([44]CVS log)
>     $Date: 2009/06/04 18:14:03 $
>
>      [43] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>      [44] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
>
>
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:22:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 4 June 2009 18:22:08 GMT