IRC log of rdfa on 2008-02-21
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:53:02 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
- 15:53:02 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/02/21-rdfa-irc
- 15:53:08 [Ralph]
- Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML Task Force
- 15:53:13 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #rdfa
- 15:53:16 [Ralph]
- zakim, this will be rdfa
- 15:53:16 [Zakim]
- ok, Ralph; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
- 15:53:22 [Ralph]
- rrsagent, please make record public
- 15:53:53 [msporny]
- morning Ralph :)
- 15:53:57 [Ralph]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-rdfa-minutes.html previous 2008-02-14
- 15:54:01 [Ralph]
- hi, Manu :)
- 15:54:17 [Ralph]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Feb/0096.html
- 15:55:21 [msporny]
- no problem, I know everybody's busy and I already had a template from last week :)
- 15:57:55 [Zakim]
- SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started
- 15:58:02 [Zakim]
- +??P1
- 15:58:07 [msporny]
- zakim, I am ??P1
- 15:58:07 [Zakim]
- +msporny; got it
- 16:00:07 [Zakim]
- +Ralph
- 16:00:38 [Ralph]
- Regrets: Michael
- 16:00:43 [msporny]
- Shane said he'd be here.
- 16:00:45 [Ralph]
- partial regrets from Mark
- 16:01:19 [Ralph]
- Ralph: Shane has been working on the /vocab namespace document
- 16:01:23 [Ralph]
- ... he's given me a draft
- 16:02:46 [Zakim]
- +ShaneM
- 16:03:19 [ShaneM]
- ShaneM has joined #rdfa
- 16:04:10 [Ralph]
- Topic: Action Review
- 16:04:17 [Ralph]
- [DONE] ACTION: Shane send response to Diego and Ed review comments when new editors' draft is up [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/14-rdfa-minutes.html#action06]
- 16:05:27 [Ralph]
- ACTION: Ben to add status of various implementations on rdfa.info [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action06]
- 16:05:29 [Ralph]
- -- continues]
- 16:05:32 [Ralph]
- -- continues
- 16:05:33 [markbirbeck]
- markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
- 16:05:47 [Ralph]
- ACTION: Ben to add status of various implementations on rdfa.info [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/04-rdfa-minutes.html#action06]
- 16:05:50 [Ralph]
- -- continues
- 16:05:59 [Ralph]
- ACTION: Ben to email mailing list to think about last substantive issue on tracker: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/6 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/07-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
- 16:06:00 [Ralph]
- -- continues
- 16:06:13 [Ralph]
- ACTION: Manu write 2 new tests for img[@src] as subject [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
- 16:06:14 [Ralph]
- -- continues
- 16:06:20 [msporny]
- hi mark, we need you to look at test cases #78-#88
- 16:06:23 [Ralph]
- 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]
- 16:06:23 [Ralph]
-
- 16:06:25 [markbirbeck]
- markbirbeck has left #rdfa
- 16:06:25 [Ralph]
- -- continues
- 16:06:26 [msporny]
- and let us know if you agree with them
- 16:06:33 [markbirbeck]
- markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
- 16:06:47 [msporny]
- hi mark, we need you to look at test cases #78-#88
- 16:06:59 [msporny]
- and let us know if you agree with them
- 16:07:03 [markbirbeck]
- Dang.
- 16:07:31 [markbirbeck]
- Ok...do you have a URL? (I know I should have a bookmark...)
- 16:07:49 [Ralph]
- -> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/ tests
- 16:07:58 [msporny]
- just FYI, #78-#83, #87 PASS using Ivan and my latest implementations.
- 16:08:11 [msporny]
- so you don't have to worry about syntax issues in those test cases.
- 16:10:35 [markbirbeck]
- #78 is fine.
- 16:10:43 [Ralph]
- Agenda: Test Cases
- 16:11:02 [Ralph]
- -- test 78
- 16:11:12 [markbirbeck]
- Minor points that they are easier to read if everything is in the same order in all blocks (HTML, N3, RDF and SPARQL) but that's my only comment.
- 16:11:15 [Ralph]
- Multiple incomplete triples
- 16:12:17 [Ralph]
- Ralph: Ben was happy with test 78 on 7-Feb; http://www.w3.org/2008/02/07-rdfa-minutes.html#item02
- 16:12:26 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: Test 78 accepted
- 16:12:42 [Ralph]
- -- test 79 @resource and @href in completing incomplete triples
- 16:12:50 [msporny]
- Ben's replies to test cases: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Feb/0025.html
- 16:12:54 [markbirbeck]
- #79 is good, too.
- 16:12:59 [markbirbeck]
- Again, minor point...
- 16:13:17 [markbirbeck]
- ...don't see what the super-abbreviation gains in the N3 block. :)
- 16:13:31 [markbirbeck]
- Makes it slightly harder to read when comparing with the HTML.
- 16:13:35 [markbirbeck]
- But minor point again.
- 16:13:45 [Ralph]
- Manu: we don't believe the N3 yet
- 16:13:59 [Ralph]
- ... focus on the SPARQL
- 16:14:02 [msporny]
- N3 is generated by Ivan's parser, plus it's informative, no need to pay attention to it yet.
- 16:14:45 [Ralph]
- Manu: N3 in test 79 looks correct, though it's unreadable as is
- 16:14:53 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: Test 79 accepted
- 16:15:07 [Ralph]
- -- test 80; @about overrides @resource in incomplete triples
- 16:15:15 [markbirbeck]
- #80 looks lovely. :)
- 16:16:17 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: Test 80 accepted
- 16:16:45 [markbirbeck]
- #81 is very smart...and seems right to me.
- 16:17:02 [Ralph]
- (Ben was happy with 80 on 7-Feb too http://www.w3.org/2008/02/07-rdfa-minutes.html#item02 )
- 16:18:08 [markbirbeck]
- #82 also looks ok to me.
- 16:19:16 [markbirbeck]
- Minor point is that in the SPARQL in other tests, the square bracket syntax has generally been used, whilst here we're using "_:a" and "_:b".
- 16:19:21 [markbirbeck]
- Minor point again, though.
- 16:19:27 [Ralph]
- [some discussion of what "substantive change" means]
- 16:19:35 [markbirbeck]
- (Compare to #83, for example.)
- 16:20:25 [msporny]
- mark, be sure to skip #84, #85, and #88
- 16:20:40 [markbirbeck]
- #83 is good.
- 16:20:45 [markbirbeck]
- ok
- 16:21:18 [Ralph]
- -- test 81; multiple ways of handling incomplete triples (with @rev)
- 16:21:50 [Ralph]
- Ralph: Ben was happy with 81 and wanted to check his implementation
- 16:21:56 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: Test 81 accepted
- 16:22:14 [Ralph]
- -- test 82; multiple ways of handling incomplete triples (with @rel and @rev)
- 16:22:32 [Ralph]
- Ralph: Ben was fine with 82 after typo fixes
- 16:22:45 [markbirbeck]
- On #86, we might want to make the query check for { <http://www.example.org#somebody> ?p <mailto:ivan@w3.org> }
- 16:23:08 [Ralph]
- Manu: Ivan has written some SPARQL using the '[...]' syntax where we've been using bnode syntax
- 16:23:20 [markbirbeck]
- The rule is that @rel="foobar" should generate nothing, not just that it shouldn't generate anything in the XHTML vocab namespace.
- 16:23:23 [Ralph]
- ... we might want to update test 83 to use bnode syntax
- 16:23:50 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: Test 82 accepted
- 16:24:01 [Ralph]
- -- test 83; multiple ways of handling incomplete triples (merged)
- 16:24:05 [markbirbeck]
- (And obviously in #86 we're testing for 'no matches', as opposed to a match.)
- 16:24:48 [Ralph]
- Manu: let's rewrite 82 to use named bnodes
- 16:24:55 [Ralph]
- s/82/83/
- 16:25:45 [Ralph]
- Manu: skip 84 and 85 for now due to syntax errors
- 16:26:22 [msporny]
- correct, mark - #86 is our first FALSE test for the SPARQL.
- 16:26:28 [Ralph]
- -- test 86; NO triple for a non-reserved @rel value
- 16:27:12 [markbirbeck]
- I'm not quite following #87...is there a similar test without the colon prefix? I.e., is this to test that that we support two means of expressing the same predicates?
- 16:27:36 [ShaneM]
- there is a similar test without a colon
- 16:27:50 [Ralph]
- Ralph: did we want our tests to allow implementations to produce "additional" triples
- 16:27:56 [markbirbeck]
- Either way, minor point would be that in general the items are in alphabetical order, which makes it handy for double-checking...so perhaps the few stray ones could be put into order.
- 16:27:57 [Ralph]
- Manu: yes, but not in the default graph
- 16:28:15 [Ralph]
- ... we haven't said that we test [only] for triples in the default graph
- 16:28:31 [Ralph]
- Ralph: in that case I like Mark's suggestion to use ?p in the SPARQL
- 16:29:00 [Ralph]
- ... so there's NO relationshp between #somebody and ivan
- 16:29:04 [Ralph]
- Manu: that makes sense to me
- 16:29:53 [markbirbeck]
- (Still on #87...) Secondly, we might consider using <base> in the test, so that we're not tied to where these tests are being run from, and to abbreviate the SPARQL.
- 16:29:58 [msporny]
- SPARQL for test #86:
- 16:30:06 [msporny]
- ASK WHERE {
- 16:30:24 [msporny]
- <http://www.example.org/#somebody> ?p <mailto:ivan@w3.org> .
- 16:30:26 [msporny]
- }
- 16:30:32 [msporny]
- That test should return FALSE.
- 16:30:45 [markbirbeck]
- And third (on #87) we might consider adding an item that is not in the list of vocab values, since this is *allowed* when using the ":foo" syntax.
- 16:31:28 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: test 86 accepted with change to ?p
- 16:31:40 [msporny]
- Mark, shouldn't that be a separate test?
- 16:31:42 [markbirbeck]
- That's all from me...I'll try to keep an eye out if you need me for anything else.
- 16:31:47 [msporny]
- testing ":foo" syntax?
- 16:31:51 [Ralph]
- -- test 87; All reserved XHTML @rel values (with :xxx)
- 16:31:54 [msporny]
- thanks :)
- 16:31:58 [markbirbeck]
- Good point.
- 16:32:02 [markbirbeck]
- Yes, could be.
- 16:32:11 [msporny]
- I think we should make that a separate test...
- 16:32:28 [markbirbeck]
- Basically, whilst @rel="foo" should *fail*, @rel=":foo" should *succeed*.
- 16:33:40 [Ralph]
- Shane: remember, :foo _always_ uses /vocab#; there's no way to change the CURIE prefix
- 16:35:00 [Ralph]
- Manu: should we test @rel="next" to insure that the code isn't using the same branch as @rel=":next" ?
- 16:35:09 [Ralph]
- ... i.e. to test a misunderstanding of the document
- 16:36:24 [Ralph]
- s/"next"/"foo"/
- 16:36:29 [Ralph]
- s/":next"/":foo"/
- 16:36:42 [msporny]
- ACTION: create unit test to make sure that rel=":foo" generates a triple.
- 16:37:10 [Ralph]
- Ralph: do we have a test for @rel="foo" ?
- 16:37:14 [Ralph]
- Manu: yes, test 86
- 16:40:58 [Ralph]
- Manu: test 87 is missing stylesheet
- 16:41:12 [Ralph]
- ... as do tests 76, 77
- 16:41:32 [msporny]
- ACTION: Let Michael know that Test 76, 77, and 87 are missing stylesheet.
- 16:42:39 [Ralph]
- Ralph: for those cases in test 87 where the reserved word plausibly has a reasonable value, we should use it
- 16:42:50 [Ralph]
- ... thought that's a nit
- 16:43:21 [Ralph]
- ... so how about just a comment noting that these test values are not semantically reasonable
- 16:44:00 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: test 87 accepted, after realphabetizing
- 16:44:41 [Ralph]
- Topioc: Implementation Report
- 16:45:14 [Ralph]
- -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Feb/0097.html Michael re: implementor's call
- 16:46:31 [Ralph]
- Ralph: the "call" that I think Michael is asking about is the "Candidate Recommendation" transition
- 16:46:41 [Ralph]
- ... CR is a "call for implementation"
- 16:51:22 [Ralph]
- ... we should document how we'd like implementers to report their implementation experience
- 16:51:30 [Ralph]
- ... this can go in the SOTD of the CR draft
- 16:52:12 [Ralph]
- Topic: Open Issues
- 16:52:16 [Ralph]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/products/2 RDFa issues tracker
- 16:53:17 [Ralph]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/7 issue 7
- 16:54:57 [Ralph]
- ACTION: Manu write a response to Christian Hoertnagl for issue 7
- 16:55:22 [Ralph]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/8 issue 8
- 16:55:57 [Ralph]
- Ralph: we've chosen to defer RDF Container support
- 16:58:29 [Ralph]
- RESOLVED: issue 8 is POSTPONED
- 16:59:13 [Ralph]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/63 issue 63
- 16:59:19 [Ralph]
- Ralph: we resolved this last telecon
- 17:00:24 [Ralph]
- [adjourned]
- 17:00:27 [Zakim]
- -ShaneM
- 17:00:29 [Zakim]
- -msporny
- 17:00:30 [Zakim]
- -Ralph
- 17:00:31 [Zakim]
- SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended
- 17:00:32 [Zakim]
- Attendees were msporny, Ralph, ShaneM
- 17:05:17 [Ralph]
- rrsagent, please draft minutes
- 17:05:17 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/02/21-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph
- 18:04:14 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #rdfa