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