Telecon Agenda - Thursday 22 October 2009, 1500 UTC

[Manu Sporny]

Hi all,

We have a telecon tomorrow, the agenda is below. Please review and
add any items that you feel need to be discussed.

==========
Thursday, October 22nd, 2009
1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge
tel:[phone] conference code RDFA
irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa
Duration: 60 minutes
Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim
==========

Agenda:

1) Action Items
http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary

2) Discuss and approve Shane's errata text
   * Reserved word values and case-sensitivity[1]
   * Updated errata on XMLLiteral values and canonical XML

3) 9 new Unreviewed XHTML Test Cases
   * http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
   * TCs: 134, 140, 142, 147, 154

-- manu

[1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0010.html

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/08/30/equitable-culture/

[Mark Birbeck-4]

Hi Manu,

I was going to flag up some of the work items that I think we need to
be keeping an eye on, and also suggest an order of priority.

The first is that @typeof="" should generate a bnode. I think we
discussed this, and even agreed an errata, but I can't find the
reference, so I thought I'd better raise it again.

Second is the use of 'URIs anywhere'; I think this is important for
the consistency of RDFa, and would also allow anyone who doesn't like
using CURIEs, or who wants to publish 'self-contained' markup snippets
that don't have prefix mappings, to do so.

After that, I think the discussion about a technique for bundling
tokens is next. That has been called the @profile discussion, but of
course that might not be the way to do it. But whatever we decide on,
I think this is important work for some of the people that are
starting to define vocabularies for authors to use, such as Yahoo!,
Google, the Good Relations vocabulary, and so on.

And then finally, the DOM API; I do think we need to do this, but I
think it comes lower down the list than these other things.

I'm proposing this list, so that each week, as we have our calls, if
there is any time left for features and design, we can make sure that
we allocate the discussion in order of agreed priority. So this is my
list -- does anyone else have such a list? And does anyone want to
disagree with the suggested order?

Regards,

Mark

--
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

mark.birbeck@...

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)



On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@...> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We have a telecon tomorrow, the agenda is below. Please review and
> add any items that you feel need to be discussed.
>
> ==========
> Thursday, October 22nd, 2009
> 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge
> tel:[phone] conference code RDFA
> irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa
> Duration: 60 minutes
> Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim
> ==========
>
> Agenda:
>
> 1) Action Items
> http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
>
> 2) Discuss and approve Shane's errata text
>   * Reserved word values and case-sensitivity[1]
>   * Updated errata on XMLLiteral values and canonical XML
>
> 3) 9 new Unreviewed XHTML Test Cases
>   * http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
>   * TCs: 134, 140, 142, 147, 154
>
> -- manu
>
> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0010.html
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture
> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/08/30/equitable-culture/
>
>
>

[Ben Adida-2]

Hi folks,

I'm mostly ramped back up, though my throughput will probably never
recover :)

In any case, barring a last-minute issue, I'll be on the call tomorrow.
I'm happy to chair if that helps, or to let Manu chair while I catch
back up.

-Ben

Manu Sporny wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We have a telecon tomorrow, the agenda is below. Please review and
> add any items that you feel need to be discussed.
>
> ==========
> Thursday, October 22nd, 2009
> 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge
> tel:[phone] conference code RDFA
> irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa
> Duration: 60 minutes
> Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim
> ==========
>
> Agenda:
>
> 1) Action Items
> http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
>
> 2) Discuss and approve Shane's errata text
>    * Reserved word values and case-sensitivity[1]
>    * Updated errata on XMLLiteral values and canonical XML
>
> 3) 9 new Unreviewed XHTML Test Cases
>    * http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
>    * TCs: 134, 140, 142, 147, 154
>
> -- manu
>
> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0010.html
>

[Manu Sporny]

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> I was going to flag up some of the work items that I think we need to
> be keeping an eye on

Looks like we've got quite a large number of things that we want to work
on and are only able to make so much weekly progress via the telecons.
Perhaps we should change the way we're operating a bit... what about
this approach:

Tomorrow, each participant in the RDFa telecon takes an ACTION for one
of the items on the list that Mark posted (and the one that is below).
The person with each respective ACTION is responsible for driving the
discussion forward on the mailing list as well as drafting spec/errata
text to resolve the issue.

We should switch to discussing more on the mailing list and less during
the telecons (unless absolutely necessary). The telecon time could be
switched to:

* 10% ACTION items
* 45% Accepting/Rejecting errata text and new spec text
* 45% Accepting/Rejecting the backlog of XHTML/HTML4/HTML5 Test Cases

> and also suggest an order of priority.

Looks good, here's my list that I had sent earlier in an e-mail to some
folks from Yahoo! - overlaps with your list quite a bit:

* Get remaining issues concerning HTML+RDFa resolved.

* Review/Approve Philip Taylors Test Cases.

* RDFa Keywords (remove the need for using namespace prefixes):

  <span about="#book" property="title">
     Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!
  </span>

* RDFa Vocabulary bundles (load keywords and prefixes from an external
  document)

  <div vocab="http://yahoo.com/vocab/search">...

* An RDFa markup validator (validates prefixes, catches common authoring
  mistakes)

* A browser-based Javascript API for accessing in-browser
  metadata/triple stores. Something like:

  var obj = pagedata.get(optionalSubjectFilter,
     optionalPredicateFilter, optionalObjectFilter);

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/

[Ivan Herman-2]

I am sorry to act as a new kid on the block. I am one, after all, as far
as this group is concerned:-)

I would like to have a clear agreement of what _this_ group wants to
achieve. If we are talking about errata, that is one thing. But some of
the issues in this list heading for an updated recommendation, some sort
of an RDFa 1.1, because it definitely adds functionality. Although each
of us prefers to have discussions on the technical contents, we have to
have a clear decision on what can be realistically achieved in the
remaining two months that this group is chartered for, and what are the
possibilities and plans for beyond that.

And to be more blunt: I do not believe it is realistic to plan for an
RDFa1.1 for this WG. As I said on the RDFa API thread, with the
publication path to follow, with a CR, ie, implementation requirements,
etc, the remaining 2 months is simply not enough.

Again, much I would prefer to dive into the technical discussions, well,
we have to talk about formalities...

Sorry:-)

Ivan

Mark Birbeck wrote:

> Hi Manu,
>
> I was going to flag up some of the work items that I think we need to
> be keeping an eye on, and also suggest an order of priority.
>
> The first is that @typeof="" should generate a bnode. I think we
> discussed this, and even agreed an errata, but I can't find the
> reference, so I thought I'd better raise it again.
>
> Second is the use of 'URIs anywhere'; I think this is important for
> the consistency of RDFa, and would also allow anyone who doesn't like
> using CURIEs, or who wants to publish 'self-contained' markup snippets
> that don't have prefix mappings, to do so.
>
> After that, I think the discussion about a technique for bundling
> tokens is next. That has been called the @profile discussion, but of
> course that might not be the way to do it. But whatever we decide on,
> I think this is important work for some of the people that are
> starting to define vocabularies for authors to use, such as Yahoo!,
> Google, the Good Relations vocabulary, and so on.
>
> And then finally, the DOM API; I do think we need to do this, but I
> think it comes lower down the list than these other things.
>
> I'm proposing this list, so that each week, as we have our calls, if
> there is any time left for features and design, we can make sure that
> we allocate the discussion in order of agreed priority. So this is my
> list -- does anyone else have such a list? And does anyone want to
> disagree with the suggested order?
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
> --
> Mark Birbeck, webBackplane
>
> mark.birbeck@...
>
> 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)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@...> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We have a telecon tomorrow, the agenda is below. Please review and
>> add any items that you feel need to be discussed.
>>
>> ==========
>> Thursday, October 22nd, 2009
>> 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge
>> tel:[phone] conference code RDFA
>> irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa
>> Duration: 60 minutes
>> Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim
>> ==========
>>
>> Agenda:
>>
>> 1) Action Items
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
>>
>> 2) Discuss and approve Shane's errata text
>>   * Reserved word values and case-sensitivity[1]
>>   * Updated errata on XMLLiteral values and canonical XML
>>
>> 3) 9 new Unreviewed XHTML Test Cases
>>   * http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
>>   * TCs: 134, 140, 142, 147, 154
>>
>> -- manu
>>
>> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0010.html
>>
>> --
>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
>> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture
>> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/08/30/equitable-culture/
>>
>>
>>
>

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: [phone]
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

[Ivan Herman-2]

Ben Adida wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm mostly ramped back up, though my throughput will probably never
> recover :)

Wait about 20 years! :-)

ivan

>
> In any case, barring a last-minute issue, I'll be on the call tomorrow.
> I'm happy to chair if that helps, or to let Manu chair while I catch
> back up.
>
> -Ben
>
> Manu Sporny wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We have a telecon tomorrow, the agenda is below. Please review and
>> add any items that you feel need to be discussed.
>>
>> ==========
>> Thursday, October 22nd, 2009
>> 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge
>> tel:[phone] conference code RDFA
>> irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa
>> Duration: 60 minutes
>> Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim
>> ==========
>>
>> Agenda:
>>
>> 1) Action Items
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
>>
>> 2) Discuss and approve Shane's errata text
>>    * Reserved word values and case-sensitivity[1]
>>    * Updated errata on XMLLiteral values and canonical XML
>>
>> 3) 9 new Unreviewed XHTML Test Cases
>>    * http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
>>    * TCs: 134, 140, 142, 147, 154
>>
>> -- manu
>>
>> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0010.html
>>
>>
>
>

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: [phone]
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

[Mark Birbeck-4]

Hi Ivan,

It's not about 'enjoying' technical discussions over process-related
ones. If that were the case we wouldn't have any specifications. :)

But I think we need to consider whether RDFa in HTML has to be the
same as RDFa in XHTML, for the reasons I'll explain.

It may not have been obvious, but my list of topics prioritises the
main objections to RDFa from the proponents of Microdata.

Some background:

In my view, Microdata is a political proposal, cobbled together over a
weekend, for reasons best known to the author. (I have my own
theories, but that's not important.)

However, what if instead of using his editor powers to add whatever he
liked to HTML5, Hixie had proposed some changes to RDFa.

For example, in Microdata, you have to mark each item with @item. Even
if there is no 'type' for the item, you still need the attribute. Some
people might like that, and you could easily do the same with
@typeof="" in RDFa.

Except I looked at RDFa and discovered that @typeof="" doesn't
actually produce a bnode, when it should.

Hence putting that errata at the top of the list.

Additionally, in Microdata you can express relationships using full
URIs; what if Hixie had proposed to this group that we support that? I
for one would have agreed with him. I know Steven would too, since he
has mentioned the consistency of URIs and CURIEs in all attributes, a
few times in the past, long before Microdata was proposed.

So I suggest that although Hixie hasn't actually proposed it, we don't
do anyone any favours if we pretend that it's not important.

I won't go through all of my list, because I just wanted to explain
why these two were at the top, when in the past we've been
prioritising things like @profile; it's because I believe we are
sophisticated enough in our approach to embrace other people's
proposals...even if they haven't made them. :)

As to where we should do this; I think we should do it in RDFa+HTML.
We should put some effort into a backwards-compatible solution for
'URIs everywhere', and so what if RDFa in HTML 'leapfrogs' RDFa in
XHTML?

Regards,

Mark

--
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

mark.birbeck@...

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)


On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@...> wrote:

> I am sorry to act as a new kid on the block. I am one, after all, as far
> as this group is concerned:-)
>
> I would like to have a clear agreement of what _this_ group wants to
> achieve. If we are talking about errata, that is one thing. But some of
> the issues in this list heading for an updated recommendation, some sort
> of an RDFa 1.1, because it definitely adds functionality. Although each
> of us prefers to have discussions on the technical contents, we have to
> have a clear decision on what can be realistically achieved in the
> remaining two months that this group is chartered for, and what are the
> possibilities and plans for beyond that.
>
> And to be more blunt: I do not believe it is realistic to plan for an
> RDFa1.1 for this WG. As I said on the RDFa API thread, with the
> publication path to follow, with a CR, ie, implementation requirements,
> etc, the remaining 2 months is simply not enough.
>
> Again, much I would prefer to dive into the technical discussions, well,
> we have to talk about formalities...
>
> Sorry:-)
>
> Ivan
>
> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>> Hi Manu,
>>
>> I was going to flag up some of the work items that I think we need to
>> be keeping an eye on, and also suggest an order of priority.
>>
>> The first is that @typeof="" should generate a bnode. I think we
>> discussed this, and even agreed an errata, but I can't find the
>> reference, so I thought I'd better raise it again.
>>
>> Second is the use of 'URIs anywhere'; I think this is important for
>> the consistency of RDFa, and would also allow anyone who doesn't like
>> using CURIEs, or who wants to publish 'self-contained' markup snippets
>> that don't have prefix mappings, to do so.
>>
>> After that, I think the discussion about a technique for bundling
>> tokens is next. That has been called the @profile discussion, but of
>> course that might not be the way to do it. But whatever we decide on,
>> I think this is important work for some of the people that are
>> starting to define vocabularies for authors to use, such as Yahoo!,
>> Google, the Good Relations vocabulary, and so on.
>>
>> And then finally, the DOM API; I do think we need to do this, but I
>> think it comes lower down the list than these other things.
>>
>> I'm proposing this list, so that each week, as we have our calls, if
>> there is any time left for features and design, we can make sure that
>> we allocate the discussion in order of agreed priority. So this is my
>> list -- does anyone else have such a list? And does anyone want to
>> disagree with the suggested order?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> --
>> Mark Birbeck, webBackplane
>>
>> mark.birbeck@...
>>
>> 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)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@...> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We have a telecon tomorrow, the agenda is below. Please review and
>>> add any items that you feel need to be discussed.
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> Thursday, October 22nd, 2009
>>> 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge
>>> tel:[phone] conference code RDFA
>>> irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa
>>> Duration: 60 minutes
>>> Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim
>>> ==========
>>>
>>> Agenda:
>>>
>>> 1) Action Items
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
>>>
>>> 2) Discuss and approve Shane's errata text
>>>   * Reserved word values and case-sensitivity[1]
>>>   * Updated errata on XMLLiteral values and canonical XML
>>>
>>> 3) 9 new Unreviewed XHTML Test Cases
>>>   * http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
>>>   * TCs: 134, 140, 142, 147, 154
>>>
>>> -- manu
>>>
>>> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0010.html
>>>
>>> --
>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
>>> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>> blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture
>>> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/08/30/equitable-culture/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: [phone]
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>

[Ivan Herman-2]

Mark,

I do not really disagree with anything you say... my remark simply meant
to say that we should have a clear plan in terms of process before we
dive into the details. Maybe you guys have and I just do not have it
(the 'new kid on the block effect').

You say: "As to where we should do this; I think we should do it in
RDFa+HTML". Do you mean that, eventually, this group should turn into a
task force of the HTML5 group? There were vague plans on chartering a
IG? WG?

In my view we should have a clear plan on these issues before getting
into the details. That is all I meant to say...

Ivan

Mark Birbeck wrote:

> Hi Ivan,
>
> It's not about 'enjoying' technical discussions over process-related
> ones. If that were the case we wouldn't have any specifications. :)
>
> But I think we need to consider whether RDFa in HTML has to be the
> same as RDFa in XHTML, for the reasons I'll explain.
>
> It may not have been obvious, but my list of topics prioritises the
> main objections to RDFa from the proponents of Microdata.
>
> Some background:
>
> In my view, Microdata is a political proposal, cobbled together over a
> weekend, for reasons best known to the author. (I have my own
> theories, but that's not important.)
>
> However, what if instead of using his editor powers to add whatever he
> liked to HTML5, Hixie had proposed some changes to RDFa.
>
> For example, in Microdata, you have to mark each item with @item. Even
> if there is no 'type' for the item, you still need the attribute. Some
> people might like that, and you could easily do the same with
> @typeof="" in RDFa.
>
> Except I looked at RDFa and discovered that @typeof="" doesn't
> actually produce a bnode, when it should.
>
> Hence putting that errata at the top of the list.
>
> Additionally, in Microdata you can express relationships using full
> URIs; what if Hixie had proposed to this group that we support that? I
> for one would have agreed with him. I know Steven would too, since he
> has mentioned the consistency of URIs and CURIEs in all attributes, a
> few times in the past, long before Microdata was proposed.
>
> So I suggest that although Hixie hasn't actually proposed it, we don't
> do anyone any favours if we pretend that it's not important.
>
> I won't go through all of my list, because I just wanted to explain
> why these two were at the top, when in the past we've been
> prioritising things like @profile; it's because I believe we are
> sophisticated enough in our approach to embrace other people's
> proposals...even if they haven't made them. :)
>
> As to where we should do this; I think we should do it in RDFa+HTML.
> We should put some effort into a backwards-compatible solution for
> 'URIs everywhere', and so what if RDFa in HTML 'leapfrogs' RDFa in
> XHTML?
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
> --
> Mark Birbeck, webBackplane
>
> mark.birbeck@...
>
> 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)
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@...> wrote:
>> I am sorry to act as a new kid on the block. I am one, after all, as far
>> as this group is concerned:-)
>>
>> I would like to have a clear agreement of what _this_ group wants to
>> achieve. If we are talking about errata, that is one thing. But some of
>> the issues in this list heading for an updated recommendation, some sort
>> of an RDFa 1.1, because it definitely adds functionality. Although each
>> of us prefers to have discussions on the technical contents, we have to
>> have a clear decision on what can be realistically achieved in the
>> remaining two months that this group is chartered for, and what are the
>> possibilities and plans for beyond that.
>>
>> And to be more blunt: I do not believe it is realistic to plan for an
>> RDFa1.1 for this WG. As I said on the RDFa API thread, with the
>> publication path to follow, with a CR, ie, implementation requirements,
>> etc, the remaining 2 months is simply not enough.
>>
>> Again, much I would prefer to dive into the technical discussions, well,
>> we have to talk about formalities...
>>
>> Sorry:-)
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>>> Hi Manu,
>>>
>>> I was going to flag up some of the work items that I think we need to
>>> be keeping an eye on, and also suggest an order of priority.
>>>
>>> The first is that @typeof="" should generate a bnode. I think we
>>> discussed this, and even agreed an errata, but I can't find the
>>> reference, so I thought I'd better raise it again.
>>>
>>> Second is the use of 'URIs anywhere'; I think this is important for
>>> the consistency of RDFa, and would also allow anyone who doesn't like
>>> using CURIEs, or who wants to publish 'self-contained' markup snippets
>>> that don't have prefix mappings, to do so.
>>>
>>> After that, I think the discussion about a technique for bundling
>>> tokens is next. That has been called the @profile discussion, but of
>>> course that might not be the way to do it. But whatever we decide on,
>>> I think this is important work for some of the people that are
>>> starting to define vocabularies for authors to use, such as Yahoo!,
>>> Google, the Good Relations vocabulary, and so on.
>>>
>>> And then finally, the DOM API; I do think we need to do this, but I
>>> think it comes lower down the list than these other things.
>>>
>>> I'm proposing this list, so that each week, as we have our calls, if
>>> there is any time left for features and design, we can make sure that
>>> we allocate the discussion in order of agreed priority. So this is my
>>> list -- does anyone else have such a list? And does anyone want to
>>> disagree with the suggested order?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Birbeck, webBackplane
>>>
>>> mark.birbeck@...
>>>
>>> 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)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@...> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We have a telecon tomorrow, the agenda is below. Please review and
>>>> add any items that you feel need to be discussed.
>>>>
>>>> ==========
>>>> Thursday, October 22nd, 2009
>>>> 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge
>>>> tel:[phone] conference code RDFA
>>>> irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa
>>>> Duration: 60 minutes
>>>> Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim
>>>> ==========
>>>>
>>>> Agenda:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Action Items
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
>>>>
>>>> 2) Discuss and approve Shane's errata text
>>>>   * Reserved word values and case-sensitivity[1]
>>>>   * Updated errata on XMLLiteral values and canonical XML
>>>>
>>>> 3) 9 new Unreviewed XHTML Test Cases
>>>>   * http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
>>>>   * TCs: 134, 140, 142, 147, 154
>>>>
>>>> -- manu
>>>>
>>>> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0010.html
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
>>>> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>>> blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture
>>>> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/08/30/equitable-culture/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>>
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: [phone]
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: [phone]
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

[Mark Birbeck-4]

Hi Ivan,

I don't disagree with you, but we have been having the 'where to do
the work' discussion for months now.

I'm simply saying, here are some work items that shouldn't get
forgotten. Other work items are being proposed, such as an RDF(a) API,
and I'm suggesting they should be regarded as a lower priority than
the items I've suggested (at least the first two, anyway).

Others can of course disagree on the priority sequence, but I'm not
sure it's worth disagreeing by simply saying "what about the process";
I think it's reasonable to have a preferred order, even without
knowing quite where the work will be done.

Having said that, we are working on a document for RDFa in HTML
(thanks to Manu's initiative), so I'm also suggesting that the world
wouldn't stop turning if there were some small enhancements in there,
beyond what is in RDFa in XHTML. Enhancements that made CURIEs an
optional feature wouldn't kill us, for example.

Regards,

Mark

--
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

mark.birbeck@...

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)


On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@...> wrote:

> Mark,
>
> I do not really disagree with anything you say... my remark simply meant
> to say that we should have a clear plan in terms of process before we
> dive into the details. Maybe you guys have and I just do not have it
> (the 'new kid on the block effect').
>
> You say: "As to where we should do this; I think we should do it in
> RDFa+HTML". Do you mean that, eventually, this group should turn into a
> task force of the HTML5 group? There were vague plans on chartering a
> IG? WG?
>
> In my view we should have a clear plan on these issues before getting
> into the details. That is all I meant to say...
>
> Ivan
>
> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>> Hi Ivan,
>>
>> It's not about 'enjoying' technical discussions over process-related
>> ones. If that were the case we wouldn't have any specifications. :)
>>
>> But I think we need to consider whether RDFa in HTML has to be the
>> same as RDFa in XHTML, for the reasons I'll explain.
>>
>> It may not have been obvious, but my list of topics prioritises the
>> main objections to RDFa from the proponents of Microdata.
>>
>> Some background:
>>
>> In my view, Microdata is a political proposal, cobbled together over a
>> weekend, for reasons best known to the author. (I have my own
>> theories, but that's not important.)
>>
>> However, what if instead of using his editor powers to add whatever he
>> liked to HTML5, Hixie had proposed some changes to RDFa.
>>
>> For example, in Microdata, you have to mark each item with @item. Even
>> if there is no 'type' for the item, you still need the attribute. Some
>> people might like that, and you could easily do the same with
>> @typeof="" in RDFa.
>>
>> Except I looked at RDFa and discovered that @typeof="" doesn't
>> actually produce a bnode, when it should.
>>
>> Hence putting that errata at the top of the list.
>>
>> Additionally, in Microdata you can express relationships using full
>> URIs; what if Hixie had proposed to this group that we support that? I
>> for one would have agreed with him. I know Steven would too, since he
>> has mentioned the consistency of URIs and CURIEs in all attributes, a
>> few times in the past, long before Microdata was proposed.
>>
>> So I suggest that although Hixie hasn't actually proposed it, we don't
>> do anyone any favours if we pretend that it's not important.
>>
>> I won't go through all of my list, because I just wanted to explain
>> why these two were at the top, when in the past we've been
>> prioritising things like @profile; it's because I believe we are
>> sophisticated enough in our approach to embrace other people's
>> proposals...even if they haven't made them. :)
>>
>> As to where we should do this; I think we should do it in RDFa+HTML.
>> We should put some effort into a backwards-compatible solution for
>> 'URIs everywhere', and so what if RDFa in HTML 'leapfrogs' RDFa in
>> XHTML?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> --
>> Mark Birbeck, webBackplane
>>
>> mark.birbeck@...
>>
>> 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)
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@...> wrote:
>>> I am sorry to act as a new kid on the block. I am one, after all, as far
>>> as this group is concerned:-)
>>>
>>> I would like to have a clear agreement of what _this_ group wants to
>>> achieve. If we are talking about errata, that is one thing. But some of
>>> the issues in this list heading for an updated recommendation, some sort
>>> of an RDFa 1.1, because it definitely adds functionality. Although each
>>> of us prefers to have discussions on the technical contents, we have to
>>> have a clear decision on what can be realistically achieved in the
>>> remaining two months that this group is chartered for, and what are the
>>> possibilities and plans for beyond that.
>>>
>>> And to be more blunt: I do not believe it is realistic to plan for an
>>> RDFa1.1 for this WG. As I said on the RDFa API thread, with the
>>> publication path to follow, with a CR, ie, implementation requirements,
>>> etc, the remaining 2 months is simply not enough.
>>>
>>> Again, much I would prefer to dive into the technical discussions, well,
>>> we have to talk about formalities...
>>>
>>> Sorry:-)
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>>>> Hi Manu,
>>>>
>>>> I was going to flag up some of the work items that I think we need to
>>>> be keeping an eye on, and also suggest an order of priority.
>>>>
>>>> The first is that @typeof="" should generate a bnode. I think we
>>>> discussed this, and even agreed an errata, but I can't find the
>>>> reference, so I thought I'd better raise it again.
>>>>
>>>> Second is the use of 'URIs anywhere'; I think this is important for
>>>> the consistency of RDFa, and would also allow anyone who doesn't like
>>>> using CURIEs, or who wants to publish 'self-contained' markup snippets
>>>> that don't have prefix mappings, to do so.
>>>>
>>>> After that, I think the discussion about a technique for bundling
>>>> tokens is next. That has been called the @profile discussion, but of
>>>> course that might not be the way to do it. But whatever we decide on,
>>>> I think this is important work for some of the people that are
>>>> starting to define vocabularies for authors to use, such as Yahoo!,
>>>> Google, the Good Relations vocabulary, and so on.
>>>>
>>>> And then finally, the DOM API; I do think we need to do this, but I
>>>> think it comes lower down the list than these other things.
>>>>
>>>> I'm proposing this list, so that each week, as we have our calls, if
>>>> there is any time left for features and design, we can make sure that
>>>> we allocate the discussion in order of agreed priority. So this is my
>>>> list -- does anyone else have such a list? And does anyone want to
>>>> disagree with the suggested order?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Birbeck, webBackplane
>>>>
>>>> mark.birbeck@...
>>>>
>>>> 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)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@...> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a telecon tomorrow, the agenda is below. Please review and
>>>>> add any items that you feel need to be discussed.
>>>>>
>>>>> ==========
>>>>> Thursday, October 22nd, 2009
>>>>> 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge
>>>>> tel:[phone] conference code RDFA
>>>>> irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa
>>>>> Duration: 60 minutes
>>>>> Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim
>>>>> ==========
>>>>>
>>>>> Agenda:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Action Items
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Discuss and approve Shane's errata text
>>>>>   * Reserved word values and case-sensitivity[1]
>>>>>   * Updated errata on XMLLiteral values and canonical XML
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) 9 new Unreviewed XHTML Test Cases
>>>>>   * http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
>>>>>   * TCs: 134, 140, 142, 147, 154
>>>>>
>>>>> -- manu
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0010.html
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
>>>>> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>>>> blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture
>>>>> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/08/30/equitable-culture/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>> mobile: [phone]
>>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>>
>
> --
>
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: [phone]
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>

[Philip Taylor-5]

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> [...]
> Some background:
>
> In my view, Microdata is a political proposal, cobbled together over a
> weekend, for reasons best known to the author. (I have my own
> theories, but that's not important.)

The design is simple enough that I don't imagine it took long to
physically write the text for the initial proposal (and it only took a
morning to read and understand it and write an implementation), but it
was preceded by months of discussions of embedded structured data use
cases and issues with RDFa (e.g. lots of messages in
<http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-January/thread.html>)
and followed by feedback from many individuals and a usability study
(<http://blog.whatwg.org/usability-testing-html5>), so it seems
factually inaccurate to view it as being developed "over a weekend".

> However, what if instead of using his editor powers to add whatever he
> liked to HTML5, Hixie had proposed some changes to RDFa.

<http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019681.html>
explains it as a series of changes to RDFa - stop using prefixes, drop
compatibility with existing RDFa content and processors, rename the
attributes to be more consistent, remove features that are more powerful
than are needed for the given use cases. So it seems like it shouldn't
be hard to interpret as a series of proposals, and discuss which ones
are good ideas that should influence RDFa itself, and which are bad and
should be rejected.

> [...] in Microdata you can express relationships using full
> URIs; what if Hixie had proposed to this group that we support that? I
> for one would have agreed with him. I know Steven would too, since he
> has mentioned the consistency of URIs and CURIEs in all attributes, a
> few times in the past, long before Microdata was proposed.

That idea has been discussed a bit between RDFa and WHATWG members long
before microdata, e.g. in
<http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-January/018278.html>,
but (if I remember correctly) there seemed to be little interest in
actually updating the RDFa spec to support new features. If there's more
interest now in updating the language, I'd agree it sounds like a good
feature to consider.

> As to where we should do this; I think we should do it in RDFa+HTML.
> We should put some effort into a backwards-compatible solution for
> 'URIs everywhere', and so what if RDFa in HTML 'leapfrogs' RDFa in
> XHTML?

Seems good to design and publish any changes as soon as possible, else
the amount of legacy content and tools will increase over time and it
will become more painful to make changes.

> Regards,
>
> Mark

--
Philip Taylor
pjt47@...

[Manu Sporny]

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> I don't disagree with you, but we have been having the 'where to do
> the work' discussion for months now.

Right... and we should probably stop talking about it and do something
about it. I think we have a fairly clear idea regarding the direction of
RDFa 1.1, HTML+RDFa 1.0 and the test suite. It has also been made clear
that HTML WG has not made a firm commitment to supporting RDFa[1].

This community now has a responsibility to the companies, organizations
and authors that have adopted and deployed RDFa. To ensure that we
continue to correct technical issues and produce requested features, we
must have a group that is committed to moving RDFa forward.

I think Ivan, Ben and I should take an action to propose the RDFa WG
charter to W3C management. If we fail to garner enough support, we will
still move forward with RDFa (through any means necessary).

In other words, I don't think the status of an RDFa WG should stop us
from working on the hard technical problems. The responsibility of
keeping the W3C Process satisfied should fall to the staff contact and
chair, while the Task Force moves forward with the technical work that
must be done.

-- manu

[1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0686.html

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/