- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:24:50 -0500
- To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
The record [1] of yesterday's RDF-in-HTML TF telecon is now ready for review. A text shapshot of revision 1.2 2005/11/17 01:19:19 follows. The next meeting is scheduled for 22 November, 1500 UTC. [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/15-swbp-minutes ---- HTML TF, SWBPD WG 15 Nov 2005 [2]Agenda [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Nov/0025.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/15-swbp-irc Attendees Present Ralph Swick, Steven Pemberton, Ben Adida, Mark Birbeck Regrets Chair Ben Scribe Ralph Previous [4]2005-11-01 [4] http://www.w3.org/2005/11/01-swbp-minutes.html Contents * Topics 1. Schedule 2. CURIEs * Summary of Action Items _____________________________________________________________ Schedule Ben: we should target to complete our work by 1 Feb Steven: what happens if we don't? Ben: we make some sort of recommendation on where to continue the work, perhaps within HTML WG Ralph: very clear sense from WG participants that having a point-of-contact within SW WG to this task force is important. The SWBPD charter may get extended a few months, should this work be bundled with that? There may be a new SW working group with new chairs, and this TF could attach there, too. Ben: Guus and David made it clear they want output from this TF before 31 Jan Ralph: we also get that pressure from others outside the WG Steven: the HTML WG agreed at its f2f to go to Last Call. We have answered all comments; we are now replying to comments and doing edits to bring the document into Last Call shape. We expect perhaps a 6-week Last Call. There's a chance that there might be a second Last Call Ralph: where does RDF/A syntax document fit in? Steven: HTML WG would pull the necessary parts of the RDF/A syntax draft into XHTML2 WD simply due to maturity level dependencies Ben: what about the RDF/A primer? would that be a separate document? Steven: yes, we haven't included primer material in the XHTML specification document; it would be a separate document. The primer could easily be a Note Mark: I would like to see CURIEs incorporated into RDF/A and thence into XHTML2 Ralph: CURIE needs to be REC-track to have any real benefit and if RDF/A syntax depends on CURIE then it should not be a separate document from XHTML2 spec Steven: HTML WG has already accepted the CURIE idea in principle Mark: the biggest issue came up when IPTC suggested they might not use namespaces as the binding mechanism Steven: an interesting conclusion from the recent mail discussion is that many of the objections go away if we change the character from ':' to something else Mark: responses to my blog point out that CURIE is a way of codifying some existing practice in WiKis and elsewhere ... I point out that CURIE also tidies up QName usage; QNames can be reserved for what they were intended for in XML Ralph: I view Norm as a friendly reviewer -- if we are able to persuade him then we've likely done all our homework CURIEs Mark: Norm's biggest objection was that there might be two meanings to a given abc:def pattern; one interpreted using namespaces and one not. But I point out that this ambiguity already exists and in practice is resolved in context. In RDF/XML, the elements are interpreted as URIs Ralph: and we're proud of that! Mark: Norm seemed to be happier if there was no ambiguity that a CURIE might be a namespace reference <Zakim> benadida, you wanted to ask about QName resolution Ben: one course of action would be to review all our prior discussions and document what solutions we considered Mark: CURIE work originated with IPTC requirement but since then we've recognized an issue with use of QNames -- that QNames are not an abbreviation for a URI. So the rationale for CURIE no longer depends on the IPTC use case; we have a stronger motivation. The TAG finding encourages people not to use QNames in this way unless they really have to Ralph: RDF relies on QNames so this question may come back to haunt us Mark: it's really RDF/XML that depends on QNames -- it's crazy that N3 syntax has to use them with their restrictions <Zakim> RalphS, you wanted to ask about ':' vs something else Ben: the argument for a change from ':' is to not appear to conflict with QName syntax but is there a real conflict? My impression is that there is not Mark: the conflict may be more political Ben: if we agree to change CURIE syntax, will we be forced to change other uses of QNames? Ralph: I see an architectural compromise of the form "QNames SHOULD NOT be used as abbreviations for URIs" -- not MUST NOT but a possible future consideration for any abbreviated URI syntax could be whether it can be used as an XML element name Steven: I don't see that reverse transformation as being necessary. Norm points out that an element name is a pair (prefix, localname) -- not a concatenation of two string Mark: the issue may only be that RDF/XML uses the term "QName" too often. I described this in mail: "[9]RE: CURIEs vs. QNames". I believe that CURIE can continue to use ':' without ambiguity, just as is done in XPath [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Nov/0021.html Ralph: so if there is no actual ambiguity, I would argue that it increases the learning curve for users to have different syntaxes for QName and Abbreviated URI Ben: if there is no technical conflict, I prefer to keep the ':' Steven: there is a level of conflict that we resolve with square brackets so if we keep ':' we still have to do something else for, e.g. unadorned CURIE in href. We still need a syntax to distinguish CURIE and URIs Ben: yes, the context will let us distinguish QName and CURIE <Steven> SO if we use [dc:licence] to distinguish, then we could use [dc]licence instead (for instance) Mark: how about dc[license] Ralph: that looks like a URI; I could imagine a current use of href="dc[license]" Mark: '[' is a disallowed URI character Ralph: are you sure? ACTION: Mark investigate authoritative specifications for '[' as a URI character [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/15-swbp-minutes.html#action01] Mark: note that use of ':' in CURIE allows existing N3 documents to be correctly interpreted, as QName is a subset of CURIE Ben: I am willing to work on the RDF/A primer, targetting an early December WG review <MarkB> "The "national" and "punctuation" characters do not appear in any productions and therefore may not appear in URLs. " <MarkB> from: [11] [11] http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/5_BNF.html <MarkB> 'National' contains '[' and ']': [12] [12] http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/5_BNF.html#z57 Ben: we have several little issues remaining; src, role, etc. <MarkB> (along with '^', '~', '{' and '}') <MarkB> (...and '\') Ben: regrets for 20 Dec Ralph, Steven: regrets for 29 Nov <Steven> It looks like [ ] are allowed: [13] [13] http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html#collected-abnf <MarkB> no...just said they are not allowed. <Steven> I think that that sytax has been obsoleted by RFC 3986 Ben: let's work on the smaller issues next week from the [14]issues list [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-current-issues next meeting: 22 Nov, regrets from Steven Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: Mark investigate authoritative specifications for '[' as a URI character [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/15-swbp-minutes.html#action01] [PENDING] ACTION: Mark report on the status of src attribute definition [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/25-swbp-minutes.html#action02] [PENDING] ACTION: Steven track and report on Role discussion before next Tuesday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/18-swbp-minutes.html#action05] [PENDING] 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] [PENDING] ACTION: Mark and Ben to check edge cases of inheritance in RDF/A [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#action06] [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph and Ben to augment the issues list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/27-swbp-irc#T14-30-04] [End of minutes] Change log: $Log: 15-swbp-minutes.html,v $ Revision 1.2 2005/11/17 01:19:19 swick cleanup for publishing _____________________________________________________________ $Date: 2005/11/17 01:19:19 $
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2005 01:25:34 UTC