See also: IRC log
http://www.w3.org/WAI/#x20071211a
SAZ: WCAG 2.0 published as a last call working
draft
... important milestone, please read it
... hopefully it meets your expectations
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Dec/0006
CV: missing content of _what_
... maybe "content of resources"?
JK: "Web resources" is too narrow
<CarlosV> Resource: a network data object identified by a URI [RFC3986]. This definition is adapted from the definition of resource in [RFC2616].
CV: "Resources Content Representation in RDF"
JK: this definition restricts to objects identified by URIs, this is not always the case
CI: reminds me of last meeting, it's about the
definition of content
... agree with johannes, don't like the URI restriction
CV: data objects?
CI: sounds more formal but not much clearer
CV: title doesn't reflect what the document says
SAZ: what does this document say?
CV: describes some resources and data objects
CI: attempt to find several kinds of
representations of content we can find on the Web
... title can't say it all, document should be explanatory
JK: like data objects, if can get rid of URI restriction
SAZ: "Representing Data Content in RDF"
<CarlosV> Title: RDF Representation of Resources Content
JK: wouldn't use "resource", RDF is already a
resource description
... using the same word twice but with different meaning is tricky
SAZ: "Representing Objects in RDF"
<CarlosV> Title: Data Objects' Content in RDF
CI: as an object-oriented progaramer it is confusing
SAZ: "Content of Data Objects in RDF"
... "Representing Content of Data Objects in RDF"
... who cannout live with "Representing Content in RDF"
... who cannot live with "Representing Content in RDF"?
CV: don't like verb at the beginning
SAZ: what about "Content Representations in RDF"?
JK: like the verb better
SAZ: propose to use "Representing Content in
RDF" for now, and start filling out the document
... it should be narritive, and explain the different ways in which content
can be represented in RDF
... we may be able to get EOWG to look at our doucments before publication,
and review them editorially
... this does however mean delaying publication until the documents are
reviewed
RESOLUTION: accept "Representing Content in RDF" as the title
JK: if a different name is proposed, this could
replicate changes throughout the document
... for example the class names etc
<JohannesK> CV: we could publish as editor's draft
SAZ: can publish as editor's or internal draft, but need more consensus within the group before we should publish on /TR
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Dec/0011.html
JK: this is the DOM Core, there are others in the suite of specification
CV: are we sure we want to go down this
road?
... DOM core may not be that hard, but would be incomplete without the
rest
CI: is this dom level 3?
JK: yes, should be
CI: was hoping for something more basic, maybe
just a placeholder
... not necessarily the whole DOM here
<carlosI> just a basic set
<carlosI> e.g.
<carlosI> dom:node
<carlosI> dom:document
<carlosI> dom:element
<carlosI> dom:attribute
<carlosI> and dom:text
CV: inclined to say no, don't go down that path
JK: think of the use cases
SAZ: first question, is what is the effort required?
secondly, do we need to do it now vs in a later version?
third, will these features be implemented by the group?
SAZ: think about it, we'll talk more about it next week