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
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]
-> previous 2008-02-14
15:54:01 [Ralph]
hi, Manu :)
15:54:17 [Ralph]
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]
15:58:07 [msporny]
zakim, I am ??P1
15:58:07 [Zakim]
+msporny; got it
16:00:07 [Zakim]
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]
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]
16:05:27 [Ralph]
ACTION: Ben to add status of various implementations on [recorded in]
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 [recorded in]
16:05:50 [Ralph]
-- continues
16:05:59 [Ralph]
ACTION: Ben to email mailing list to think about last substantive issue on tracker: [recorded in]
16:06:00 [Ralph]
-- continues
16:06:13 [Ralph]
ACTION: Manu write 2 new tests for img[@src] as subject [recorded in]
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]
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]
16:07:31 [markbirbeck] you have a URL? (I know I should have a bookmark...)
16:07:49 [Ralph]
-> 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;
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:
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 )
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]
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 { <> ?p <> }
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]
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 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 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]
16:30:24 [msporny]
<> ?p <> .
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]
16:36:29 [Ralph]
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]
-> 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]
-> RDFa issues tracker
16:53:17 [Ralph]
-> issue 7
16:54:57 [Ralph]
ACTION: Manu write a response to Christian Hoertnagl for issue 7
16:55:22 [Ralph]
-> issue 8
16:55:57 [Ralph]
Ralph: we've chosen to defer RDF Container support
16:58:29 [Ralph]
16:59:13 [Ralph]
-> issue 63
16:59:19 [Ralph]
Ralph: we resolved this last telecon
17:00:24 [Ralph]
17:00:27 [Zakim]
17:00:29 [Zakim]
17:00:30 [Zakim]
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 Ralph
18:04:14 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfa