- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:49:56 +0100
- To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Cc: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, public-swd-wg@w3.org, RDFa TF list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Hi Michael, That sounds great! What I was pondering on in the telecon was whether there was some kind of linked data group within the W3C, and whether that might be a place within which to pursue further work on RDFa. Ralph said that at the moment linked data doesn't have anything like that. But definitely...RDFa is very much 'part of' the linked data 'movement'. Regards, Mark On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Michael Hausenblas<michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote: > Ralph, Mark, > > >> markbirbeck: Wonder if there is a case for stating that RDFa has a >> place in Linked Data. >> >> Ralph: Good thought, but no formal structure for Linked Data. > > In my understanding RDFa and linked data are already very well connected. > I've started to discuss and lobby for it in 2008 (incl. the publication of > the first linked dataset in RDFa, see [1] and [2]). > > We are currently working on a tutorial 'Linked Data Tutorial - NG, > Publishing and consuming linked data with RDFa' [3] which we'd like publish > as a SWIG note - your comments and your support for this is very welcome (in > general, as I was told by DanBri, on semantic-web@w3.org). > > Cheers, > Michael > > [1] > http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2008/03/what_do_linkeddata_and_rdfa_ha.ht > ml > [2] http://tr.im/iCYe > [3] http://ld2sd.deri.org/lod-ng-tutorial/ > > -- > Dr. Michael Hausenblas > DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute > National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan, > Galway, Ireland, Europe > Tel. +353 91 495730 > http://sw-app.org/about.html > http://webofdata.wordpress.com/ > > >> From: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org> >> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:42:05 -0400 >> To: RDFa TF list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org> >> Cc: <public-swd-wg@w3.org> >> Subject: meeting record: 2009-06-11 RDFa Task Force >> Resent-From: <public-swd-wg@w3.org> >> Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:42:29 +0000 >> >> The record of today's RDF-in-XHTML Task Force telecon is available as >> >> http://www.w3.org/2009/06/11-rdfa-minutes.html >> >> Thanks to Manu for scribing. >> >> A text snapshot follows. >> >> ---- >> >> RDFa in XHTML Task Force >> >> 11 Jun 2009 >> >> [2]Agenda >> >> [2] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jun/0031.html >> >> See also: [3]IRC log >> >> [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/11-rdfa-irc >> >> Attendees >> >> Present >> Manu Sporny, Shane McCarron, Ralph Swick, Ben Adida, Mark >> Birbeck >> >> Regrets >> Michael Hausenblas >> >> Chair >> Ben Adida >> >> Scribe >> Manu Sporny with some fill from Ralph >> >> Contents >> >> * Topics >> 1. Action Items >> 2. Test Cases >> 3. Target of RDFa Processing >> * Summary of Action Items >> ______________________________________________________ >> >> >> Previous: [9]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html >> >> [9] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html >> >> <Steven> Good; I'm at a vFtF at the moment, so only on irc today >> >> benadida: need to leave 15 minutes early today >> ... try to get to target of RDFa processing at 1/2 past today >> >> Manu: I talked with Robert Scoble last week >> ... he's talking about "2010 Web", launching "Building 43 >> Initiative" >> ... he'd like to learn more about Semantic Web and would like to do >> an interview >> ... perhaps RDFa could be his first interview >> ... would you be interesting in being interviewed, Ben? >> >> Ben: sure, nice to keep the current momentum going >> >> <Ralph> [10]Scobleizer >> >> [10] http://scobleizer.com/ >> >> Action Items >> >> ACTION: Manu create a wiki page for discussion of issue-214 >> [recorded in >> [11]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] [DONE] >> >> [11] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action12 >> >> [12]http://rdfa.info/wiki/Rdfa-in-html-issues#Mixing_id_and_about_on >> _the_same_element >> >> [12] >> http://rdfa.info/wiki/Rdfa-in-html-issues#Mixing_id_and_about_on_the_same_elem >> ent >> >> ACTION: Ralph find the statement on test suite copyright [recorded >> in [13]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] >> [DONE] >> >> [13] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action13 >> >> <Ralph> [14]Licenses for W3C Test Suites >> >> [14] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-copyright.html >> >> ACTION: Ben to author wiki page with charter template for RDFa IG. >> Manu to provide support where needed. [recorded in >> [15]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action10] >> [CONTINUES] >> >> [15] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action10 >> >> ACTION: Ben to put up information on "how to write RDFa" with >> screencast possibly and instructions on bookmarklet. [recorded in >> [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] >> [WITHDRAWN] >> >> [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action12 >> >> ACTION: Ben to prepare "how to write RDFa" screencast with fragment >> parser [recorded in >> [17]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action05] >> >> markbirbeck: Do we need to keep track of these items? We do this >> sort of stuff as a natural part of what we do and it eats into the >> conversation time. >> >> benadida: I will do this and we won't talk about it more until it's >> done. >> >> ACTION: 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] >> [CONTINUES] >> >> [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09 >> >> ACTION: Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning [recorded in >> [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] >> [CONTINUES] >> >> [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12 >> >> markbirbeck: I'll try to work on this at SemTech. >> >> ACTION: Mark to send Ben ubiquity related wizard stuff [recorded in >> [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] >> [CONTINUES] >> >> [20] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action11 >> >> markbirbeck: next step in your fragment parser is to generate these >> wizards? >> >> ACTION: Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in >> [21]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] >> [CONTINUES] >> >> [21] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13 >> >> ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded >> in [22]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14] >> [CONTINUES] >> >> [22] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14 >> >> ACTION: Ralph make a request for an RDFa issue tracker instance >> [recorded in >> [23]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] >> [CONTINUES] >> >> [23] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action11 >> >> ACTION: Ralph or Steven fix the .htaccess for the XHTML namespace >> [recorded in >> [24]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action01] >> [CONTINUES] >> >> [24] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action01 >> >> benadida: Anybody else we can ping on the issue tracker thing? >> >> Ralph: I'll just do it. >> >> ACTION: Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in >> [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15] >> [CONTINUES] >> >> [25] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15 >> >> Test Cases >> >> Manu: let's defer discussion on tests 123, 127, and 128; they're >> related to other design discussions >> ... 124, 125, and 126 are ready for discussion >> ... there's a bug in 124 in the test harness; missing a space >> ... the email is correct >> >> <Ralph> [26]Suggested test case 0124 [26] >> >> [26] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009May/0256.html >> [26] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009May/0256.html >> >> benadida: any thoughts on Philips test cases? >> ... I want to be sure we don't overlook >> [27]http://philip.html5.org/demos/rdfa/results.html >> >> [27] http://philip.html5.org/demos/rdfa/results.html >> >> ShaneM1: Just want to go make sure they're thorough - looks good so >> far. >> >> benadida: Can I run the test suite entirely in Javascript? Do we >> have a SPARQL implementation for the Javascript test suite? >> >> markbirbeck: Had an issue creating the actual parser itself. >> ... I construct JS objects that look like SPARQL and use those. >> >> benadida: Let's talk about that offline. >> >> Target of RDFa Processing >> >> benadida: Sam was on the call last week? That was good. >> ... Appreciate all the work done to minimize the issue to the core >> problem. >> ... Here's an idea... >> >> <Ralph> [28]The target of RDFa processing rules >> >> [28] >> http://rdfa.info/wiki/Rdfa-in-html-issues#The_target_of_RDFa_processing_rules >> >> benadida: There is an idea that Mark has floated, which is to have >> an RDFa core processing rules document. >> ... It can be on an abstract document structure/tree. >> ... The way we make that happen in the long term, may be to not do >> that first, but write an RDFa for HTML5 document that is what Henri >> suggested. >> ... Parse with html5lib and then work on the DOM - see if we can get >> a spec written up doing that... >> ... We can have specific rules for DOMs that have namespace support >> and those that don't. >> ... We can then see where the triples differ between html5lib and >> xhtml. >> >> markbirbeck: Idea sounds okay, but the spec is already general. >> ... It says it can work on SAX and "child nodes" - so I think we're >> talking about namespace processing. >> ... Things like processing lower-case attributes. >> ... I think we can produce an HTML5 spec pretty quickly. >> ... This idea has come up before, before XHTML+RDFa >> >> <Ralph> [[ >> >> <Ralph> Processing need not follow the DOM traversal technique >> outlined here, although the effect of following some other manner of >> processing must be the same as if the processing outlined here were >> followed. The processing model is explained using the idea of DOM >> traversal which makes it easier to describe (particularly in >> relation to the [evaluation context]). >> >> <Ralph> ]] >> >> <Ralph> -- [29]http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_model >> >> [29] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_model >> >> <Ralph> (that's a pretty DOM-centric way of being "general" :) ] >> >> markbirbeck: We should tightly control the general processing rules >> because there is a deep understanding in this group about what we're >> trying to achieve. >> ... If we can write the HTML5+RDFa spec, it's a quicker way of >> getting these issues hammered out. >> >> benadida: The rules don't have to be re-written in any significant >> way, but we do have to focus on how we get to the DOM. >> ... First parse with html5lib - then use RDFa processing rules to >> process that DOM. >> >> <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about processing rules >> >> ShaneM1: It's difficult to divorce the technical issues from the >> political/personal issues. >> ... I'm fundamentally opposed to repeating text in normative >> specifications. >> ... It creates divergence. >> ... If processing rules are generic enough - and that was the >> intention with the current set of rules. >> ... if the rules aren't sufficiently generic, we must fix it in the >> underlying REC. >> >> benadida: I can live with that - we should revise XHTML+RDFa spec if >> the generic rules change. >> ... We should have one version of the rules. >> >> <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to prefer that the text match as closely >> as possible >> >> Ralph: It's a shame if we have to have the text replicated in >> several places. >> ... if the choice is to have HTML WG to go off on a divergent path >> because we insist that they only reference an external document >> ... or if we can give them the text to place into their document. >> ... We should give them the text (which is not preferrable >> technically). >> ... as we were drafting our spec, early language didn't get some of >> this stuff right and we tweaked the text. >> ... The fewer tweaks we make, the better off we will be to limit the >> introduction of new bugs >> ... We should preserve as much of the text of the original spec as >> possible. >> ... What if we discover more bugs? >> ... How much of this should we change? >> >> ShaneM1: Isn't that what the errata process is for? >> >> Ralph: Depends upon the nature of the change. >> ... We shouldn't make design changes - only errata type changes are >> allowed. We should start from that position. >> >> ShaneM1: Errata is something we can publish immediately - in order >> to keep the specs in steps... as we discover problems, we should >> publish errata >> ... important to try and minimize changes, but we've already >> discovered one issue that is critical - case sensitivity of CURIEs. >> ... That's not minor. >> >> markbirbeck: Slightly different way of coming at this - >> modularization idea is absolutely right. >> ... He says we should fix this in the core, but there is no RDFa >> core. >> ... Maybe we'll have a first, and second implementation. >> ... We might want to do an RDFa 1.1 - don't know how this fits with >> the processes. >> ... We might be able to produce a new version of the spec that >> includes XHTML and HTML family languages. >> ... If it's HTML5, run html5lib and skip to core processing rules. >> ... If it's XHTML, run X and skip to core processing rules. >> ... Because it's an update on our current spec, we don't introduce >> fragmentation. >> >> <ShaneM1> +1 on mark's suggestion assuming we have the ability to >> introduce material about HTML into the RDFa Syntax specification. >> >> markbirbeck: In terms of the process, maybe this would be smoother >> approach. >> >> Manu: one of the biggest issues I have is generating more documents >> for people to review >> ... we have a list of issues that are pretty clear at this point >> ... Sam Ruby and Philip agree these are all the issues currently >> known >> ... so premature to decide on how to write an HTML+RDFa document >> until we've addressed these issues >> ... Mark's idea on "RDFa in HTML Languages" could be a way to avoid >> divergence >> ... separate test suites will be needed for HTML4+RDFa, HTML5+RDFa, >> ...; this grows exponentially >> ... I don't think we're far from being able to generate an RDFa 1.1 >> spec that addresses the current issue list >> >> <ShaneM1> FWIW it is possible to have the same test suite exercise >> multiple languages. >> >> benadida: Two quick things. >> ... ideally this RDFa 1.1 approach would take some time. >> ... We should provide some alternative to microdata >> ... I'm worried that doing another REC would take a long time, and >> it's not the sort of thing that the HTML5 folks would include in >> their document. >> >> Manu: why would we not be able to put out an RDFa 1.1 draft spec in >> 2 weeks? >> ... we wouldn't expect this to be included immediately in HTML5 >> >> <ShaneM1> process issue - we don't have charter to say anything >> about HTML in a draft >> >> benadida: How do we address text duplication between XHTML+RDFa and >> HTML5? >> >> markbirbeck: You're effectively deprecating RDFa 1.0 with RDFa 1.1. >> ... The major differences are going to be case sensitivity, maybe >> @prefix and @token. >> >> Ralph: You're going to have to work with the HTML WG. >> ... You must work with HTML WG RDFa 1.1 >> >> benadida: I think we do agree on RDFa working on a model like this - >> first html5lib then generic RDFa processing rules. >> >> Manu: I think we're saying that something produces a tree-like >> model, and then the RDFa processing rules operate on that tree-like >> model. >> >> ShaneM1: Ralph - you said we have to work with HTML WG, I don't >> think we can say anything about HTML in an updated RDFa 1.1 >> >> Ralph: We are not going to get permission to publish RDFa 1.1 >> without working with HTML WG. >> >> markbirbeck: I disagree with Manu's point that we should have more >> discussion before publishing something. >> ... In the end, commit-then-review may be the way to go forward. >> >> <ShaneM1> Remember that "proposals have momentum" >> >> markbirbeck: It is a convenient way of discussing things. >> >> Ralph: Feel free to do what you want with the editors draft, but >> they're not going to get WD status. >> >> markbirbeck: I think we're mainly discussing how to stop the >> fragmentation of the text. >> ... There is already some fragmentation - Shane's document and >> Philip's document... >> ... Why can't we create a document and then use it as a discussion >> point. >> ... Perhaps we should focus on generating something to the HTML5 >> community to show them that we're working on these issues. >> ... It also stops fragmentation. >> >> Manu: What are we calling that document? >> >> markbirbeck: We talked about RDFa Core. >> >> Ralph: RDF Core means "the core RDF spec itself" >> >> markbirbeck: RDFa Core would contain nothing but the core processing >> rules. >> ... Maybe the other approach is to have one RDFa spec, but for that >> spec to be continually updated. >> ... Maybe the document should contain XHTML, HTML, SVG Tiny. >> ... Maybe it should include Data+RSS from Yahoo? >> ... Everything being deferred to the core section of the document? >> >> <Steven> I have to go now (not that I have done any more than lurk) >> >> markbirbeck: Maybe this document is more than just RDFa+XHTML... >> >> ShaneM1: My question is since the short name is rdfa-syntax - if we >> change the operational title, is it a process issue? >> >> Ralph: It could be done, but there are other issues. >> ... The longer we go trying to operate as an independent task force >> - the worse it will look for us. >> >> markbirbeck: We could talk about this on the mailing lists - which >> we've done. >> ... We could also generate a document to talk about. >> ... We should make this document look like what we'd like it to be. >> >> ShaneM1: Maybe Mark and I can work on a structure of the document >> offline? >> ... Our target audience might not find it acceptable. >> >> markbirbeck: We may want to focus on an "RDFa" document instead of >> several "RDFa in X" documents. >> >> Ralph: The RDFa IG notion is on the table - and that group will be >> involved in decisions on RDFa moving forward. >> >> markbirbeck: Where do LinkedData people come in? >> >> Ralph: They don't have a formal group yet, if pressed, they could be >> part of SWIG. >> ... SWIG has a practice of creating Task Forces - Healthcare/Life >> Science came out of that. >> >> markbirbeck: Wonder if there is a case for stating that RDFa has a >> place in Linked Data. >> >> Ralph: Good thought, but no formal structure for Linked Data. >> >> Summary of Action Items >> >> [NEW] ACTION: Ben to prepare "how to write RDFa" screencast with >> fragment parser [recorded in >> [30]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action05] >> >> [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to author wiki page with charter template for >> RDFa IG. Manu to provide support where needed. [recorded in >> [31]http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action10] >> [PENDING] ACTION: Manu to write summary for Semantic Web Use Cases >> for Ivan. [recorded in >> [32]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] >> [PENDING] ACTION: Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning >> [recorded in >> [33]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] >> [PENDING] ACTION: Mark to send Ben ubiquity related wizard stuff >> [recorded in >> [34]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action11] >> [PENDING] ACTION: Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in >> [35]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 >> [36]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14] >> [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph find the statement on test suite copyright >> [recorded in >> [37]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action13] >> [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph make a request for an RDFa issue tracker >> instance [recorded in >> [38]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 >> [39]http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action01] >> [PENDING] ACTION: Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in >> [40]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15] >> >> [31] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action10 >> [32] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09 >> [33] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action12 >> [34] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action11 >> [35] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action13 >> [36] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action14 >> [37] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action13 >> [38] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action11 >> [39] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/08-rdfa-minutes.html#action01 >> [40] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action15 >> >> [DONE] ACTION: Manu create a wiki page for discussion of issue-214 >> [recorded in >> [41]http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] >> >> [41] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action12 >> >> [WITHDRAWN] ACTION: Ben to put up information on "how to write RDFa" >> with screencast possibly and instructions on bookmarklet. [recorded >> in [42]http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action12] >> [End of minutes] >> _____________________________________________________ >> >> [42] http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action12 >> >> >> Minutes formatted by David Booth's [43]scribe.perl version 1.135 >> ([44]CVS log) >> $Date: 2009/06/11 16:40:27 $ >> >> [43] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm >> [44] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ >> >> > > -- Mark Birbeck, webBackplane mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street, London, EC2A 4RR)
Received on Saturday, 13 June 2009 06:50:35 UTC