W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Agenda for telco, 2011-11-17

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:58:55 +0100
Cc: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <678156CC-DCB8-4DC7-AE55-C943C882BE10@w3.org>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
For the <time> element's datatypes: I know that the <time> element will still evolve. But, for the time being, in my view we should stick to the current HTML document on microsyntaxes:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#dates-and-times

which defines time, date, datetime. In my reading of that spec (but I may be wrong), even the g* types are out of that scope, and duration, too. Ie, I would stick to time, date, and datetime.



Ivan

--------------

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> 
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:31:50 -0500
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> 
CC: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> 
Message-ID: <54E5635A-7B93-406B-B7BF-B957EFA64BDE@greggkellogg.net> 
On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:

> 
> On Nov 16, 2011, at 16:23 , Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
>> Manu is at a conference, so we agreed I would propose an agenda for our telco tomorrow, that I will also chair.
>> 
>> We have what I believe are relatively low hanging fruits, ie, issues where we seem to have agreement on (based on the email discussion) and it would be good to have them out of the way. Actually, we may want to speed up things by making an informal vote on these before the meeting...
> 
> My vote:
> 
>> - ISSUE-97: Determine if datetime should be supported in HTML5
>> 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/97

> 
> Yes. As discussed, at the minimum date, time, and datetime syntax (maybe gYear and gDay?) should be recognized and datatype set; if it does not match, it is a plain literal. In the absence of @content the element's text content should be used

+1: Note that Hixie has mentioned considering Tantek's use cases that do include alternate content models for <time> [1]. It does not reference XSD datatypes, although the mapping is pretty obvious. We do need to be careful to match the actual HTML5 semantics of the element, but we need to figure out how to track it, if as and when the model changes.

This would include the following datatypes:
xsd:date
xsd:time
xsd:dateTime
xsd:duration
xsd:gYear
xsd:gYearMonth
xsd:gMonthDay

>> 
>> - ISSUE-113: Add the value attribute of the HTML data element as a possible literal target for property
>> 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/113

> 
> Yes

+1: This is interesting, as <data @value> is intended to be "machine readable" data, which I interpret to mean having a datatype. It is specifically intended when the machine-readable value is different from a human readable format. This would imply to me that doing a lexical matching over a larger set of XSD datatypes would be appropriate, but it's not called out explicitly.

Note that the <data> element isn't in the current W3C editor's draft, but is in the WHATWG version.

>> 
>> - ISSUE-116: Consider owl terms for vocab expansion
>> 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/116

> 
> Yes

+1

>> 
>> - ISSUE-118: Should we consider allowing the '/' character in a term
>> 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/118

> 
> 
> Yes

+1

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/wiki/User:Tantekelik/time_element


Gregg

> Ivan
> 
> 
>> We can then look at some of the more 'hairy' issues if we have time. 
>> 
>> Thursday,2011-11-17
>> Time: 1400 UTC, 7am San Francisco, 10am Boston, 2pm London, 3pm Amsterdam
>> W3C Zakim bridge, telecon code: RDFA (7332)
>>   SIP: 
zakim@voip.w3.org

>>   Phone US: +1.617.761.6200
>> 
irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa

>> Duration: 60 minutes
>> Scribe: Henri, Steven, Gregg, Ted
>> Chair: Ivan
>> 
>> Agenda
>> 
>> 1. Admin: accept last meeting's minutes
>> 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-11-03

>> 
>> 2. Low hanging fruits on the issue list:
>> - ISSUE-97: Determine if datetime should be supported in HTML5
>> 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/97

>> 
>> - ISSUE-113: Add the value attribute of the HTML data element as a possible literal target for property
>> 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/113

>> 
>> - ISSUE-116: Consider owl terms for vocab expansion
>> 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/116

>> 
>> - ISSUE-118: Should we consider allowing the '/' character in a term
>> 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/118

>> 
>> 3. ISSUE-108: Refine/deprecate Link relations for the RDFa 1.1 Default Profile
>> 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/108

>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: 
http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/

>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> FOAF: 
http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: 
http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/

> mobile: +31-641044153
> FOAF: 
http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 11:56:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:18 GMT