IRC log of swbp on 2004-08-04
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 12:55:27 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #swbp
- 12:55:47 [Ralph]
- Meeting: SWBPD RDF-in-HTML Task Force
- 12:58:41 [Zakim]
- SW_BPD(xhtml)9:00AM has now started
- 12:58:48 [Zakim]
- +Ralph
- 12:59:17 [benadida]
- benadida has joined #swbp
- 12:59:46 [Zakim]
- + +1.441.962.aaaa
- 12:59:57 [benadida]
- about to call in
- 13:00:00 [danbri]
- danbri has joined #swbp
- 13:00:07 [Ralph]
- zakim, aaaa is Nick_Gibbins
- 13:00:07 [Zakim]
- +Nick_Gibbins; got it
- 13:00:10 [danbri]
- zakim, dial danbri-home
- 13:00:10 [Zakim]
- ok, danbri; the call is being made
- 13:01:50 [Zakim]
- +Ben_Adida
- 13:04:04 [Zakim]
- +Danbri
- 13:04:29 [danbri]
- 1997-era metadata syntax discussion, http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue12/metadata/
- 13:04:42 [Ralph]
- Chair: Ben Adida
- 13:04:45 [danbri]
- pre-history re the HTML WG revisions to <link>, <meta>
- 13:04:45 [Ralph]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Aug/att-0000/2004-08-04-agenda.html__charset_ISO-8859-1
- 13:05:42 [Zakim]
- +David_Wood
- 13:06:21 [Zakim]
- +David_Wood|Tom_Adams
- 13:06:38 [Ralph]
- zakim, David_Wood|Tom_Adams is Tom_Adams
- 13:06:38 [Zakim]
- sorry, Ralph, I do not recognize a party named 'David_Wood|Tom_Adams'
- 13:06:42 [TomAdams]
- TomAdams has joined #swbp
- 13:07:02 [danbri]
- ben: goal for meeting is common direction...
- 13:07:05 [danbri]
- ...not bite off too much
- 13:07:07 [Ralph]
- zakim, David_WoodTom_Adams is Tom_Adams
- 13:07:07 [Zakim]
- +Tom_Adams; got it
- 13:07:12 [danbri]
- ...seems xhtml wg been doing fair bit of work
- 13:07:26 [danbri]
- ...if in a couple weeks we conclude 'lets default to their recommendations', that could be a fine outcome if all agree
- 13:07:34 [danbri]
- ...hope we can get collab w/ html wg
- 13:08:09 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph: i think its important that we put some effort into doing some kind of formal review of the HTML July22 draft
- 13:08:20 [danbri_scribe]
- ...and give a formal response from BP WG of some kind
- 13:08:33 [nmg]
- nmg has joined #swbp
- 13:08:48 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph: they deserve, fro mthe sw community, some feedback on that
- 13:09:16 [danbri_scribe]
- david(?): what form should feedback take
- 13:09:24 [danbri_scribe]
- (sorry not recognising all voices yet)
- 13:09:36 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph: see http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722/ ...anybody welcome to send individual comments
- 13:10:02 [danbri_scribe]
- ....but i think the comments from this wg will carry more weight if they come as a msg 'from the group' (chair(s) and/or TF leader)
- 13:10:08 [danbri_scribe]
- ...if it carried wg consensus
- 13:10:16 [danbri_scribe]
- ...we're still working out exactly how BP TFs operate
- 13:10:41 [danbri_scribe]
- ...my viewpoint is that this group here, and future telecons, will propose a response to our wg, ...
- 13:10:56 [danbri_scribe]
- ...and the wg will review it quicklyish and then we'll send it to the HTML WG as our WG's response
- 13:11:06 [danbri_scribe]
- ?: sounds good
- 13:11:13 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph: similar process to notes
- 13:11:28 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: addressed 1 item on agenda, re dependencies
- 13:11:38 [Ralph]
- rrsagent, please make logs world-visible
- 13:12:20 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph: we should note that we expect Ben to coord a review
- 13:12:30 [danbri_scribe]
- ...but actions are on individuals to get reviews done
- 13:12:37 [danbri_scribe]
- q+ to ask timescale for reviews
- 13:12:49 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: re requirements
- 13:13:55 [Ralph]
- DamBri: Dublin Core has had requirements; posted an old link from 1997
- 13:14:04 [Ralph]
- ... DC has been frustrated with the old META restrictions
- 13:14:26 [Ralph]
- ... want, e.g. to be able to supply phone numbers for authors
- 13:14:58 [Ralph]
- ... RDF WG proposed rel="meta", only recently has that been put into an HTML spec
- 13:15:00 [dom]
- dom has joined #swbp
- 13:15:08 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: one of the big issues that came up when discussing w/ Mark..
- 13:15:17 [danbri_scribe]
- ...was whether xhtml should allow for full expression of rdf
- 13:15:22 [Ralph]
- Ralph has changed the topic to: XHTML Task Force meeting: 4 Aug 1300 UTC; Zakim conf code SWBP
- 13:15:33 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: originally mark thought it should do an rdf-lite
- 13:16:10 [Ralph]
- DanBri: had that discussion with Mark; he now believes it to be a complete RDF syntax
- 13:16:24 [Ralph]
- ... expect that it can express all of RDF
- 13:16:31 [danbri_scribe]
- danbri: I believe the current syntax is a complete rdf syntax
- 13:16:40 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph: that's an assertion that we should test
- 13:16:48 [danbri_scribe]
- ...jjc at march f2f offered to take a look at it
- 13:17:37 [danbri_scribe]
- danbri: our role might be to help QA the HTML WG's work
- 13:17:45 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph: if it is an rdf lite, that could be fine too
- 13:17:49 [danbri_scribe]
- ...so long as we know
- 13:17:58 [danbri_scribe]
- ...somebody could take an action to ping jeremy
- 13:19:11 [danbri_scribe]
- action: ralph to contact jjc regarding investigate of expressiveness (full or partial) of HTML WG's proposal
- 13:19:22 [danbri_scribe]
- nick: Some time back I did a review of the earlier proposal
- 13:19:33 [danbri_scribe]
- (nick, could you find an url?)
- 13:19:33 [nmg]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0180.html
- 13:19:36 [danbri_scribe]
- thanks
- 13:20:07 [Ralph]
- DanBri: have XML Literals been looked at?
- 13:20:19 [Ralph]
- NickG: I think XML Literals are now in
- 13:20:50 [Ralph]
- ... anonymous nodes and node IDs are also a question
- 13:22:08 [danbri_scribe]
- danbri: the examples in the spec are a bit 98-ish in that they assume everything has a uri
- 13:23:01 [danbri_scribe]
- [discussion of older meta tag use cases]
- 13:23:23 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: issue (esp Creative Commons ish) of link-level metadata
- 13:24:13 [danbri_scribe]
- ...clickable links
- 13:24:40 [danbri_scribe]
- danbri: this is the powerful thing about the new design
- 13:24:42 [danbri_scribe]
- ack danbri
- 13:24:42 [Zakim]
- danbri_scribe, you wanted to ask timescale for reviews
- 13:25:38 [dom]
- I'm available now
- 13:25:44 [Ralph]
- Ben: 2 weeks?
- 13:25:44 [dom]
- should/may I join?
- 13:25:50 [Ralph]
- yes, Dom, please join if you can
- 13:25:53 [danbri_scribe]
- resolved: internal 2 week target for reviews of http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722/
- 13:26:11 [danbri_scribe]
- q?
- 13:26:24 [Zakim]
- +Dom
- 13:27:01 [danbri_scribe]
- ack ralph
- 13:27:01 [Zakim]
- Ralph, you wanted to mention an existing requirements document
- 13:27:27 [Ralph]
- from May 2003:
- 13:27:29 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph: wanted to point out from may 2003...
- 13:27:30 [Ralph]
- the CG-sponsored Task Force produced a requirements document in May 2003
- 13:27:38 [danbri_scribe]
- dom, agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Aug/att-0000/2004-08-04-agenda.html__charset_ISO-8859-1
- 13:27:41 [dom]
- http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html
- 13:27:45 [Ralph]
- http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html
- 13:27:58 [danbri_scribe]
- ...a start at collecting requirements.
- 13:28:10 [danbri_scribe]
- q+ to speak in favour of requirement listing
- 13:28:29 [danbri_scribe]
- ...we should go back to the may 2003 doc, polish, see if we still agree.
- 13:28:38 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: sounds good
- 13:28:54 [danbri_scribe]
- action: ben to review http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html
- 13:29:02 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph: eg. it doesn't mention creative commons
- 13:29:20 [danbri_scribe]
- danbri: I could articulate a content-filtering use case
- 13:29:37 [danbri_scribe]
- q+ to ask whether we'd want the html wg to make a normative reference to rdf
- 13:30:10 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph: lets not slow down the good progress we're seeing in html world by spending too long on our own requirements
- 13:30:46 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: two approaches we're exploring
- 13:31:11 [danbri_scribe]
- GRDDL, transformation based approach, typically xslt, to get rdf/xml
- 13:31:24 [danbri_scribe]
- dom: currently we only support rdf/xml
- 13:31:42 [danbri_scribe]
- (GRDDL (rhymes with Riddle))
- 13:32:04 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: looks like a GRDDL transform could be built for the new XHTML meta spec
- 13:32:10 [danbri_scribe]
- ...might help in backwards compatibility world
- 13:32:28 [danbri_scribe]
- dom: not quite sure what u mean backwards compatibility
- 13:32:43 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: we could build a GRDDL and deploy the same markup in XHTML 1
- 13:32:47 [Ralph]
- [re: "we should go back to the may 2003 document" -- my emphasis there was that we shouldn't start from scratch on requirements as there's an existing document. I hope we don't spend a lot of time on requirements, though I recognize that future consensus on proposed solutions could depend on having previously had a consensus on requirements]
- 13:33:11 [danbri_scribe]
- dom: you'd lose conformance with XHTML 1
- 13:33:15 [danbri_scribe]
- danbri: couldn't nest links, etc
- 13:33:22 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: OK
- 13:33:29 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: a bunch of other approaches in the wild...
- 13:33:37 [danbri_scribe]
- ...should we look at these?
- 13:33:58 [danbri_scribe]
- ...specifically, the 'lower-cased s semantic web' approach
- 13:34:07 [danbri_scribe]
- ...eg rel attribute of <a> tags to add types to a link
- 13:34:21 [danbri_scribe]
- ...doing this in a way that seems incompatible with the XHTML 2 approach
- 13:34:29 [danbri_scribe]
- ...Creative Commons doing something
- 13:34:35 [danbri_scribe]
- ...also suggestsions re FOAF
- 13:34:41 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: I have some pointers
- 13:34:44 [benadida]
- http://tantek.com/presentations/2004etech/realworldsemanticspres.html
- 13:35:20 [danbri_scribe]
- (this is xfn etc...)
- 13:35:29 [danbri_scribe]
- (tantek former html wg member)
- 13:35:43 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: all this rdf/owl stuff complicated, lets get there incrementally
- 13:35:51 [danbri_scribe]
- (is the general line taken, )
- 13:36:08 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph: does it do something extra?
- 13:36:26 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: ?something re vocabulary
- 13:36:37 [danbri_scribe]
- ...main difference, is that it uses the rel attribute in a way that xhtml2 doesn't expect
- 13:36:56 [Ralph]
- DanBri: is this the same idiom used in XFN?
- 13:37:12 [Ralph]
- ... e.g. a space-separated list of tokens in the rel, tied to something in the profile?
- 13:37:18 [Ralph]
- ... a decorational link between documents
- 13:37:41 [Ralph]
- ... can be quite hairy when folded into RDF
- 13:37:50 [danbri_scribe]
- dom: XFN can be GRDDL'd
- 13:38:00 [danbri_scribe]
- ...should we bridge the two worlds w/ GRDDL
- 13:38:26 [danbri_scribe]
- dom: not sure there's a problem w/ the XHTML 2.0 meta and this use of 'rel'
- 13:38:48 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: one of the discussions i had w/ Steven Pemberton and Mark Birbeck... was whether it could be applied to <a>
- 13:39:18 [benadida]
- I see the queue, apologies!
- 13:39:21 [danbri_scribe]
- David: regardless of utility of adding complexity to xhtml, there will be user communities who'll want simpler authoring
- 13:39:48 [danbri_scribe]
- ...some user groups will want gt expressivity, others will want simple stuff
- 13:39:56 [Zakim]
- danbri_scribe, you wanted to speak in favour of requirement listing and to ask whether we'd want the html wg to make a normative reference to rdf
- 13:39:56 [danbri_scribe]
- ack danbri
- 13:41:02 [Ralph]
- DanBri: the way the current XHTML spec is written it doesn't expressly mention RDF
- 13:41:58 [Ralph]
- ... if it turns out that they have not actually covered RDF precisely, then unless they make a normative reference to RDF they still haven't done anything incorrect
- 13:42:29 [Ralph]
- ... give them help in connecting their work to RDF would help
- 13:42:41 [Ralph]
- ... e.g. concerns about bloat from W3C
- 13:43:00 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph: I certainly think we'll want them to make a normative reference to RDF and/or OWL
- 13:43:08 [danbri_scribe]
- ...that'll be one of the subtle bits of coordination to work on
- 13:43:20 [danbri_scribe]
- ...whether they're not making such big comments about rdf, so as to not to stir up dissent
- 13:43:29 [benadida]
- q?
- 13:43:53 [danbri_scribe]
- ...part of our review will help do that
- 13:44:07 [danbri_scribe]
- ...if we determine that either the section 19, section 20 ...
- 13:44:35 [danbri_scribe]
- ...does cover 80/90/100% of RDF, and report that to them, it ought to be a no-brainer for them
- 13:44:44 [danbri_scribe]
- ...and it'd help both them and us
- 13:44:51 [danbri_scribe]
- ...showing explicit semantic connection
- 13:45:12 [Zakim]
- -David_Wood
- 13:45:38 [danbri_scribe]
- ...if we decide they've covered most or all of RDF, they ought to be willing to mention RDF
- 13:45:50 [danbri_scribe]
- danbri: a recent msg from Mark suggested it might have been overly cautious
- 13:46:09 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph: they need some msg from us reassuring whether it is a good approach or not
- 13:46:17 [danbri_scribe]
- ...we still owe them that
- 13:46:30 [danbri_scribe]
- ...until then, it is reasonable for them to be reluctant to make a normative ref
- 13:47:02 [Ralph]
- DanBri: not sure how HTML WG does testing and QA
- 13:47:09 [prototypo]
- prototypo has joined #swbp
- 13:47:32 [Ralph]
- ... RDF Core WG did detailed testing the second time around
- 13:47:36 [Ralph]
- ... e.g. ntriples
- 13:48:12 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph: if you're suggesting that the rdfcore test cases, in part or whole, could be used to test this encoding... thats a good idea
- 13:48:27 [danbri_scribe]
- ...help authoritatively determine the actual coverage of the new syntax
- 13:48:53 [Ralph]
- DanBri: I think it would help to write test cases in ntriples
- 13:49:18 [Ralph]
- ... second part -- reusing RDF Core test cases -- would require writing some code
- 13:49:49 [Ralph]
- ... Max Froumentin is interested in writing a parser for the XHTML MIM proposal
- 13:49:51 [dom]
- I'm muted!
- 13:50:26 [prototypo]
- prototypo has joined #swbp
- 13:50:39 [Ralph]
- Dom: Mark B said he was working on a translator to N3
- 13:50:52 [danbri_scribe]
- action: danbri ask Mark whether he has an xslt parser for the new notation
- 13:51:09 [Zakim]
- Ralph, you wanted to say something about priorities
- 13:51:15 [Zakim]
- SW_BPD(xhtml)9:00AM has been moved to #html
- 13:51:42 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph: there are other proposals, eg. the XFN-ish stuff
- 13:51:57 [danbri_scribe]
- ...i'm worried about the modest resources this TF has
- 13:52:02 [danbri_scribe]
- ...and hence prioritisation
- 13:52:12 [danbri_scribe]
- ...and ever closing window of opportunity
- 13:52:16 [danbri_scribe]
- ...to respond to the html wg
- 13:52:27 [David_Wood]
- David_Wood has joined #swbp
- 13:52:44 [danbri_scribe]
- ...they've probably had discussions to look at whether their approach fits with other uses of rel= attribute
- 13:53:03 [danbri_scribe]
- ...they're reaching out to us, we should give v high priority to that question
- 13:53:38 [danbri_scribe]
- ...if we find some probelm with it, we could evaluate xfn etc., it sounds like the major selling point of xfn is its surface simplicity
- 13:54:33 [danbri_scribe]
- q+ to propose a strawman: our focus should be XHTML meta module + GRDDL for anything left over
- 13:55:07 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: i'd support that
- 13:55:21 [danbri_scribe]
- ...focus on 'big S' Semantic Web.
- 13:55:28 [RRSAgent]
- sees 3 open action items:
- 13:55:28 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: ralph to contact jjc regarding investigate of expressiveness (full or partial) of HTML WG's proposal [1]
- 13:55:28 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-19-11
- 13:55:28 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: ben to review http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html [2]
- 13:55:28 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-28-54
- 13:55:28 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: danbri ask Mark whether he has an xslt parser for the new notation [3]
- 13:55:28 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-50-52
- 13:55:29 [danbri_scribe]
- q- #time
- 13:55:33 [danbri_scribe]
- q-
- 13:56:15 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: so focus, we all take a look at this proposal and reconvene
- 13:56:56 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph, could we draft a template for a response from ben?
- 13:57:24 [danbri_scribe]
- ...it might help us to focus our effort if there was a draft in progress
- 13:57:32 [danbri_scribe]
- ben: i can do that if i have some guidance from you
- 13:58:10 [danbri_scribe]
- action: ben draft a template response
- 13:59:04 [danbri_scribe]
- ralph: I thought there was a communication disconnect w/ Mark and Mimasa...
- 13:59:27 [danbri_scribe]
- ...we should repair that, and formally state that public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf be our mailing list home
- 13:59:54 [Ralph]
- proposed: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf be the mailing list for this Task Force
- 14:00:04 [danbri_scribe]
- RESOLVED: to use public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf as primary forum for discussion of this TF
- 14:01:12 [Ralph]
- DanBri: the XHTML proposal allows these statements to be put pretty much anywhere
- 14:01:30 [Ralph]
- ... I'd like to see if this can be combined with imagemap; e.g. to make RDF statements about regions of an image
- 14:01:42 [Ralph]
- Tom: Jim Hendler's group has done some relevant work
- 14:01:56 [Ralph]
- another telecon?
- 14:02:35 [danbri_scribe]
- next telecon: thinking 2 weeks ish
- 14:02:52 [danbri_scribe]
- +1
- 14:02:55 [dom]
- +1
- 14:03:03 [danbri_scribe]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 14:03:03 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T14-03-03
- 14:03:15 [nmg]
- nmg has joined #swbp
- 14:04:33 [Ralph]
- zakim, list attendees
- 14:04:33 [Zakim]
- sorry, Ralph, I don't know what conference this is
- 14:05:12 [danbri_scribe]
- actions?
- 14:05:12 [RRSAgent]
- sees 4 open action items:
- 14:05:12 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: ralph to contact jjc regarding investigate of expressiveness (full or partial) of HTML WG's proposal [1]
- 14:05:12 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-19-11
- 14:05:12 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: ben to review http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html [2]
- 14:05:12 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-28-54
- 14:05:12 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: danbri ask Mark whether he has an xslt parser for the new notation [3]
- 14:05:12 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-50-52
- 14:05:12 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: ben draft a template response [4]
- 14:05:12 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-58-10
- 14:05:43 [nmg]
- nmg has left #swbp
- 14:05:46 [Ralph]
- [RRSAgent will write the actions to the log when it is dismissed]
- 14:06:08 [danbri_scribe]
- 13:16:48 [danbri_scribe]
- 14:06:08 [danbri_scribe]
- ...jjc at march f2f offered to take a look at it
- 14:06:20 [danbri_scribe]
- ...is the last thing I see written to http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc
- 14:07:01 [Ralph]
- there's more there, waiting to commit to CVS
- 14:07:32 [Ralph]
- [if you're done noting things for the record, then we can dismiss RRSAgent]
- 14:08:07 [danbri_scribe]
- done, yup.
- 14:08:21 [Ralph]
- rrsagent, bye
- 14:08:21 [RRSAgent]
- I see 4 open action items:
- 14:08:21 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: ralph to contact jjc regarding investigate of expressiveness (full or partial) of HTML WG's proposal [1]
- 14:08:21 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-19-11
- 14:08:21 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: ben to review http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html [2]
- 14:08:21 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-28-54
- 14:08:21 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: danbri ask Mark whether he has an xslt parser for the new notation [3]
- 14:08:21 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-50-52
- 14:08:21 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: ben draft a template response [4]
- 14:08:21 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc#T13-58-10