14:50:58 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 14:50:58 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-rdfa-irc 14:51:03 Zakim has joined #rdfa 14:51:08 zakim, this will be SW_SWD(RDFa) 14:51:08 ok, mhausenblas; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes 14:51:17 Meeting: W3C RDF-in-XHTML TF - Telecon 2007-10-18, 15:00 UTC 14:51:24 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0180.html 14:51:31 -> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-rdfa-minutes.html previous 2007-10-11 14:51:38 Chair: Ben 14:51:45 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:51:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-rdfa-minutes.html mhausenblas 14:51:51 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:55:15 Ralph has joined #rdfa 14:55:57 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:55:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-rdfa-minutes.html mhausenblas 14:57:18 or a list of Zakim commands? 14:57:51 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html Zakim irc bot instructions 14:58:29 SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started 14:58:32 +Michael_Hausenblas 14:59:04 +Ralph 14:59:06 -Ralph 14:59:07 +Ralph 15:02:26 markbirbeck has joined #rdfa 15:02:51 zakim, gimme the codes please. 15:02:51 I don't understand 'gimme the codes please', markbirbeck 15:02:55 +??P11 15:02:57 zakim, codes? 15:02:57 I don't understand your question, markbirbeck. 15:03:02 zakim, code? 15:03:02 the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck 15:03:11 zakim, ??p11 is Manu 15:03:12 +Manu; got it 15:03:45 +??P13 15:03:47 zakim, i am ? 15:03:47 +markbirbeck; got it 15:04:58 +ShaneM 15:05:28 + +1.617.395.aaaa 15:05:39 benadida has joined #rdfa 15:06:34 Zakim, who i speaking? 15:06:34 I don't understand your question, Simone. 15:06:36 zakim, aaaa is Ben 15:06:36 +Ben; got it 15:06:39 Zakim, who is speaking? 15:06:49 Simone, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ben (85%), Michael_Hausenblas (20%) 15:06:53 +[IPcaller] 15:06:54 I can re-connect if needed, Ralph? 15:07:01 Zakim, IPcaller is me 15:07:01 +Simone; got it 15:08:10 Zakim, who is speaking? 15:08:20 Simone, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Michael_Hausenblas (68%), Simone (16%) 15:10:19 next telecon is Friday 26 october, 1400 UTC 15:10:29 zakim, pick a victim 15:10:29 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Simone 15:10:36 ScribeNick: mhausenblas 15:10:54 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:10:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-rdfa-minutes.html mhausenblas 15:12:21 Ben: There are certain edge cases we need to iron out, but we are on a good way 15:12:28 Topic: Action Items 15:12:35 -> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary 15:14:19 Ralph: Syntax Document - process issues are clear for Shane/Steven? 15:14:41 Shane: Steven is currently on holiday - rest offline 15:15:32 Ben: So this will be the draft we propose for publication 15:15:37 [NEW] ACTION: All look at tests 46 - 53 and write what you believe the correct triples are [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action10] 15:15:51 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0175.html Ben's init the thread 15:17:05 -- done 15:17:05 -- done 15:17:23 [NEW] ACTION: Ben to set up a proper scribe schedule [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action01] 15:17:27 -- continues 15:17:32 [NEW] ACTION: Michael to find a more appropriate predicate than foaf:knows for TC46-53 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-rdfa-minutes.html#action09] 15:17:38 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0181.html Manu implicitly resovled it 15:17:51 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0181.html Manu implicitly resovled it 15:17:59 -> http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_maker foaf:maker 15:18:09 -- done 15:18:19 [PENDING] ACTION: Ben to add status of various implementations on rdfa.info [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action06] 15:18:24 -- continues 15:18:29 [PENDING] ACTION: Michael make sure to confirm a design for checking that the ASK SPARQL queries evaluate (yes/no) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action07] 15:18:35 -- done 15:18:42 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0171.html Michael's proposal 15:19:32 [PENDING] ACTION: Michael to create "Microformats done right -- unambiguous taxonomies via RDF" on the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/23-rdfa-minutes.html#action06] 15:20:02 -- continues 15:20:23 Topic: Test Cases Review and Approval (46-53, 54-56) 15:20:35 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0170.html Manu's proposed TC validator 15:20:42 scribenick: ralph 15:20:54 Michael: Manu proposed a wonderful implementation of a test case validator 15:21:06 ... I'd accept a formal action shared with Manu to implement this 15:21:20 ... both as an on-line service and as a downloadable tool 15:21:41 ... downloadable version would run locally but still fetch test resources from w3.org 15:21:59 Manu: Ivan's help is necessary for pyrdfa bits 15:23:35 ACTION: Michael and Manu investigate with Ivan the implementation of the test case validator proposal on w3.org 15:23:49 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/ TC 15:24:17 -- test 46 15:24:35 Michael: I've not yet made the foaf:knows -> foaf:maker change; please assume that correction has been made 15:24:47 Manu, Ben: 46 ok 15:25:27 Mark: we're still going to have the @instanceof discussion, right? 15:26:14 Ben: I'm pretty sure Mark and I agree in the case of test 46 15:26:33 Mark: the @instanceof discussion that Ben and I are having does apply to test 46 as well 15:26:47 ... I've sent Ben a long email 15:26:57 ... I would apply @instanceof to a subject that sits before the @rel 15:27:18 Ben: so you'd have @instanceof inheriting something? 15:27:34 Mark: no, @instance of would create a bnode on the div and @rel and @instanceof both apply to this bnode 15:27:52 Ben: so there would be 2 bnodes? 15:27:53 Mark: yes 15:28:29 ... I'm not opposed to changing if there are use cases that require Ben's interpretation 15:28:43 Manu: this will affect all the test cases 15:30:21 Michael: shall we put test 46 on hold pending decision on how @instanceof works? 15:30:24 Ben: yes 15:30:28 -- test 47 15:31:17 Mark: if the question is whether these test are consistent, then, yes; but if the question is whether we agree on the triples, then no 15:31:26 ... I think @instanceof should apply to the subject 15:31:41 Ben: I'm confused because I thought these were the ones we agreed on 15:32:12 Mark: if @resource was on its own, then I'd agree that @instanceof applies to it 15:33:02 ... e.g. if @rel were omitted from test 47, then we might have the same interpretation 15:34:25 q+ 15:35:16 Ralph: are these differences in interpretation of the language in the document or differences revealed by having some actual triples to look at? 15:35:46 Mark: to be fair, I've agreed to let the document proceed even though I disagree with some of it 15:36:05 ... looks to me like test 48 works the way I expect 15:37:20 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0175.html "Evaluation of Test Cases 46-53" [Ben 2007-10-17] 15:37:30 Manu: perhaps there is agreement on test 49? 15:37:47 Mark, Ben: test 49 is OK 15:37:57 Mark: I say @about always applies 15:38:12 Ben: this is the one wierd case where I could be convinced to create a bnode 15:38:56 ... I agree this test gives the right triples 15:39:11 RESOLVED: test 49 approved 15:39:54 q+ to ask about semantics in 49 15:40:03 Manu: perhaps we agree on 50 also? 15:40:23 +1 15:40:23 ASK WHERE { 15:40:23 _:a "John Doe" . 15:40:23 _:a 15:40:23 . 15:40:26 } 15:40:41 Manu: the sparql is wrong; should be as posted above 15:41:22 Mark: test 50 is fine with me 15:41:32 ... bnode created on the DIV and the property applies to that bnode 15:41:41 RESOLVED: test 50 approved 15:42:01 Ralph, you wanted to ask about semantics in 49 15:42:24 Ralph: TAG would object to us suggesting that example.org's home page has rdf:type foaf:Person 15:42:30 Michael: add #me then 15:42:34 Ralph: OK 15:43:13 -- test 51 15:43:46 Mark: on test 51 I'd still create the bnode first and attach the property to it 15:44:02 Ben: we've said for a long time that @instanceof is syntactic sugar for a child element 15:44:11 Mark: yes, but not any element 15:44:21 ... we'd said that LINK and META apply to the parent 15:44:29 we could at least resolve the semantic issue in TC51 15:44:36 as Manu put outin his review 15:44:37 Shane: child of LINK or when LINK is a child? LINK's content model is empty 15:44:38

15:44:55 s/outin/out in 15:45:49 Mark: we used to have @role be a long-handed way of adding predicates to a parent element 15:46:06 Manu: the question is about precedence 15:46:23 ... it seems consistent that @instanceof without @about always creates a bnode 15:46:36 Ben: the question is "on what element"? 15:46:50 ... I think the property picks up a subject before the bnode is identified 15:47:18 s/we used to have @role/we used to have / 15:48:02 Ralph: if you need to make assumptions about the order of processing of attributes, does that affect either of these interpretations? 15:48:17 Ben, Mark: we think order of processing does affect both interpretations 15:48:28 Manu: @@scribe didn't capture 15:48:46 Ben: one interpretation makes certain use cases very difficult to write 15:48:51 Manu: but not impossible 15:49:08 ... the goal is to make something that is consistent 15:49:15 Ben: no, the goal is to meet our use cases 15:49:31 ... how do you write "I know another person"? 15:49:41 ... without chaining, this becomes very difficult 15:49:50 ... came up first when we considered bibtex 15:50:11 ... wanting to give an rdf:type to the author of a paper 15:50:32 Manu: we may have conflicting goals; consistency vs. use cases 15:50:38 Ben: I think we've always had those conflicts 15:50:55
15:51:02 ... I agree that Mark's interpretation is definitely consistent 15:51:49 -- test 52 15:51:56 I see Ben's issue. I've realised that we are missing one element of the 'old' chaining that we don't have now. 15:52:01 In this: 15:52:03 Ben: if I heard Mark correctly, we might agree on 52 15:52:04
15:52:04
15:52:04
15:52:04 ...for ever... 15:52:04
15:52:05
15:52:07
15:52:15 We used to make the object/subject line up. 15:52:25 Ben: Mark's example in irc is a good example 15:52:36 If we were to explicitly 'align' them, would that resolve it for you, Ben? 15:53:13 Mark: in the case of 52, I see @resource working just like @about 15:53:21 Michael: needs #me again 15:53:45 Mark, Ben: agree on 52 15:53:58 Mark: the example I just posted in irc ... 15:54:21 ... when we first had chaining (before we'd removed and readded it), it was more explicit that the object of one became the subject of the other 15:54:36 ... with one more rule, I think this addresses Ben's use case 15:55:01 RESOLVED: test 52 approved, pending addition of #me 15:55:05 -- test 53 15:55:32 Ben: one triple is missing from the SPARQL 15:55:37 ... add #me again 15:56:27 Michael: in the future, I will clean proposed test cases for semantic bugs first before adding them to the test suite 15:56:35 ... for discussion 15:57:07 Manu: consider completely different properties; e.g. type foaf:Document 15:57:47 ASK WHERE { 15:57:47 15:57:47 15:57:47 . 15:57:47 15:57:48 15:57:50 "John Doe". 15:57:52 } 15:58:42 Ben, Mark: agree with Manu's triples in irc 15:58:51 RESOLVED, test 53 accepted pending addition of #me 15:59:11 -- test 54 15:59:35 (multiple properites) 15:59:44 Ben, Mark: look good to us 15:59:51 RESOLVED, test 54 accepted 15:59:55 -- test 55 16:00:03 Ben: 55 uses @rel instead of @property 16:00:31 Ben, Mark: 55 looks good to us 16:00:35 RESOLVED, test 55 accepted 16:00:47 -- test 56 16:00:52 Michael: 56 is a smorgasbord 16:01:27 Ben: if it's a reasonable and correct example, I see no reason to refuse it as a test 16:01:40 Michael: I want to understand if it introduces anything new 16:01:45 ... it's a matter of time 16:01:52 ... I don't see anything new in test 56 16:02:11 Manu: might catch if a developer has inserted a whole bunch of hacks 16:02:44 Mark: consider numbering such tests starting with a higher number 16:02:49 Ralph: how about 200 ? :) 16:02:53 Manu: like torture tests? 16:03:15 Michael: I'll pick 1000 16:03:47 ASK WHERE { 16:03:47 16:03:47 16:03:47 . 16:03:47 16:03:48 "Weekend off in Iona" . 16:03:50 16:03:52 16:03:55 "2006-10-21"^^ . 16:03:56 16:03:58 16:04:00 "2006-10-23"^^ . 16:04:02 16:04:04 . 16:04:06 16:04:08 "Iona, UK" . 16:04:10 } 16:04:12 "rdf:type" needed to be expanded, also missing a "." at the end of 16:04:14 the next-to-last statement. 16:04:17 Manu: there are two errors in the SPARQL; missing rdf:type 16:04:42 Mark, Ben: 56 looks good to us 16:04:52 RESOLVED: test 56 accepted, renamed to 1001 16:05:02 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0173.html Ivan's concerns on approved TC 16:05:33 Michael: Ivan asked us to reconsider tests 11 and 29 16:05:49 ... both concern the handling of whitespace 16:06:02 Ben: Ivan has a good point particularly w.r.t. handling of PRE 16:06:21 ACTION: Ben enter Ivan's concerns in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0173.html as issues in tracker 16:06:59 Shane: the syntax draft asks "what is the default value for @instanceof" 16:07:04 ... this is a schema implementation issue 16:07:09 ... do we know an answer? 16:07:14 Ben: can the default be null? 16:07:24 Mark: but that would make every DIV be a bnode 16:07:33 Ben: that's why I proposed null 16:08:05 ... since @instanceof changes the way subject interpretation occurs, it should not have a default value 16:08:15 ... @instanceof="" should not be the same as omitting @instanceof 16:08:48 Shane: so the answer is there is no default value from a DTD implementation perspective, but there is a default interpretation from an RDFa implementation perspective 16:09:17 scribenick: mhausenblas 16:09:19 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:09:19 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-rdfa-minutes.html mhausenblas 16:09:25 Topic: State of Documents 16:09:45 Shane: Work on Syntax and will forward it to Ralph 16:10:13 Ben: Regarding Primer I worked in a lot of comments, incl. BobDC 16:10:31 ... won't be around on upcoming SWD telecon 16:11:44 Ben: Need to request it via mail 16:12:13 Ralph: Also remind the chairs for critical issues 16:12:15 Topic: Schedule for next Telecons 16:12:26 Next Friday, 26 Oct 14:00UTC 16:12:36 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:12:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-rdfa-minutes.html mhausenblas 16:12:43 -Manu 16:12:45 -ShaneM 16:12:45 -Michael_Hausenblas 16:12:49 -Ralph 16:12:54 zakim, list participants 16:12:54 As of this point the attendees have been Michael_Hausenblas, Ralph, Manu, markbirbeck, ShaneM, +1.617.395.aaaa, Ben, Simone 16:13:08 -Simone 16:14:18 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:14:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-rdfa-minutes.html mhausenblas 16:17:42 [I have just changed next week's telecon reservation to Friday, 1 hour earlier -- http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20071026 ] 16:17:51 zakim, bye 16:17:51 leaving. As of this point the attendees were Michael_Hausenblas, Ralph, Manu, markbirbeck, ShaneM, +1.617.395.aaaa, Ben, Simone 16:17:51 Zakim has left #rdfa 16:18:04 rrsagent, bye 16:18:04 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-rdfa-actions.rdf : 16:18:04 ACTION: Michael and Manu investigate with Ivan the implementation of the test case validator proposal on w3.org [1] 16:18:04 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-rdfa-irc#T15-23-35 16:18:04 ACTION: Ben enter Ivan's concerns in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0173.html as issues in tracker [2] 16:18:04 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-rdfa-irc#T16-06-21