IRC log of rdfa on 2008-06-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:45:25 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:45:25 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-rdfa-irc
14:45:35 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:46:45 [msporny]: zakim, this will be SW_SWD(RDFa)
14:46:45 [Zakim]: ok, msporny; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
14:47:06 [msporny]: Scribe: Manu Sporny
14:47:17 [msporny]: ScribeNick: msporny
14:47:34 [ShaneM]: FWIW I am at the XHTML 2 WG meeting now and it might be challenging to attend this meeting too
14:47:39 [msporny]: Meeting: RDF in XHTML Task Force
14:48:03 [msporny]: Chair: Ben Adida
14:48:39 [msporny]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jun/0110.html
14:49:01 [msporny]: previous: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-rdfa-minutes
14:50:54 [Steven]: I am unable to attend too
14:51:20 [msporny]: Regrets: Steven Pemberton, Shane McCarron
14:51:36 [msporny]: rrsagent, make minutes public
14:51:36 [RRSAgent]: I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', msporny. Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:52:00 [msporny]: rrsagent, draft minutes
14:52:00 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
14:54:52 [msporny]: rrsagent, make minutes
14:54:52 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
14:55:09 [msporny]: rrsagent, make minutes public
14:55:09 [RRSAgent]: I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', msporny. Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:55:26 [msporny]: rrsagent, make public
14:55:26 [RRSAgent]: I'm logging. I don't understand 'make public', msporny. Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:55:28 [msporny]: grr
14:56:14 [msporny]: rrsagent, make logs public
14:56:23 [Ralph]: Ralph has joined #rdfa
14:56:47 [Zakim]: SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started
14:56:54 [Zakim]: +Ralph
14:58:27 [Zakim]: +??P11
14:58:30 [Zakim]: -Ralph
14:58:31 [Zakim]: +Ralph
14:58:33 [msporny]: zakim, I am ??P11
14:58:33 [Zakim]: +msporny; got it
15:00:47 [msporny]: Present: Ralph Swick, Manu Sporny
15:02:15 [ShaneM]: is ben not going to attend today?
15:03:20 [benadida]: benadida has joined #rdfa
15:03:21 [ShaneM]: I am trying to wrap xhtml 2 call
15:03:53 [Zakim]: +Ben_Adida
15:04:30 [msporny]: Regrets +Mark_Birbeck
15:04:46 [msporny]: Regrets+ Mark_Birbeck
15:05:00 [Zakim]: +ShaneM
15:05:06 [msporny]: Present+ Shane McCarron
15:05:13 [msporny]: Present+ Ben Adida
15:14:55 [msporny]: Topic: TimBL's comments
15:15:23 [Ralph]: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/CR-rdfa-syntax-20080620/#docconf
15:15:36 [msporny]: Ralph: There are two remaining technical points that need to be clarified.
15:15:49 [msporny]: Ralph: The document type and extra triples that are generated.
15:16:12 [msporny]: Ralph: regarding document conformance, the concern is around SHOULDs for the DOCTYPE and @profile.
15:16:56 [msporny]: Ralph: My proposal after the conversation with Tim is to put the reference to DOCTYPE and @profile into a non-normative appendix
15:17:26 [msporny]: Ralph: The reasoning is that these are both for the convenience of implementations that need these facilities. They are not required for the document to assert it has triples.
15:17:49 [msporny]: Ralph: Neither DOCTYPE nor @profile are essential for asserting triples.
15:17:54 [msporny]: Ben: What about @version
15:18:04 [msporny]: Ralph: Tim has not expressed worry about @version.
15:18:15 [msporny]: Ben: We should make this consistent, so we should include @version.
15:18:23 [msporny]: Ralph: Good point, we should include it in the appendix.
15:19:18 [msporny]: Shane: I though this was about SHOULD/MUST for detection of triples.
15:20:10 [msporny]: Ralph: Not really, each of the three was meant to assert whether or not the document asserts the triples.
15:21:36 [Ralph]: Ben: we all agree that triples are kicked off via the namespace document
15:21:48 [msporny]: Shane: The constraints from XHTML modularization have nothing to do with triple generation.
15:21:58 [msporny]: Shane: They have to do with the announcement of the type of document that is being delivered.
15:22:25 [msporny]: Shane: We always provide a way for document authors to specify the type of document they're delivering.
15:22:56 [msporny]: Ralph: The GRDDL spec is clear that either @profile or namespace document is sufficient. We're doing the namespace document, so we're covered there.
15:23:46 [msporny]: Ben: I thought we were always clear about changing the definition of XHTML with modularization.
15:24:15 [msporny]: Ben: So we're moving to an appendix or changing to MAY.
15:24:22 [msporny]: Ben: Isn't that change substantive.
15:25:15 [msporny]: Ralph: There's another way to look at it... we need to consult with XHTML 2 WG.
15:25:29 [msporny]: Ralph: The spec currently says SHOULD, and what we're being told is that SHOULD is confusing.
15:26:08 [msporny]: Ralph: SHOULD means that implementations should complain if documents don't have this, but we're not attempting to be that strong.
15:26:53 [msporny]: Ralph: It's not clear what the triple protocol is with these three SHOULDs.
15:27:05 [msporny]: Ralph: It's a different kind of IETF SHOULD...
15:27:55 [msporny]: Shane: It is possible that XHTML2 WG is using the term SHOULD in a way that other groups use it... and if that's the case we should change it.
15:28:12 [msporny]: Shane: We don't think that SHOULD means "agents should complain". If that's the case, we should be saying "MAY".
15:28:49 [msporny]: Shane: Usually MAY is an optional behavior, and is a warning to implementers to not depend on the behavior.
15:29:22 [msporny]: Shane: We now have @version - it would be nice to say MUST include @version.
15:31:50 [msporny]: Shane: We are attempting to do 2 things with this.
15:32:08 [msporny]: Shane: Define a document type and define a method to detect that triples could be extracted from the document.
15:32:27 [msporny]: Ralph: The definition of the markup language is done through the namespace URL.
15:37:49 [msporny]: Manu: So we have DOCTYPE and then we have @version and we have @profile.
15:38:07 [msporny]: Manu: In the future, it seems like people want to get rid of DOCTYPE. So isn't @version going to be necessary in the future?
15:38:22 [msporny]: Shane: AFAIK, yes.
15:39:19 [msporny]: Ralph: If somebody creates a schema that produces different triples, we would be uncomfortable with that. You must state the @version if you want to be clear.
15:39:52 [msporny]: Ben: Is there going to be a way to follow your nose using a combination of the default namespace and @version.
15:40:20 [msporny]: Ralph: If the namespace document identified triples that mapped to the @version, then you could follow your nose.
15:41:11 [msporny]: Shane: We need to figure out the mapping, that's all.
15:41:40 [msporny]: Shane: So we could support follow your nose with this approach.
15:41:55 [msporny]: Ben: So DOCTYPE and @profile are not necessary, but @version could be.
15:42:38 [msporny]: Ralph: If we say that @version is a MUST, then we might be suggesting that the XHTML1 triples were always there.
15:43:07 [msporny]: Ben: No @version should be a SHOULD, and the XHTML1 triples have always been there.
15:43:34 [msporny]: Shane: There is a difference between stating the document type and stating that there are triples in the document.
15:43:55 [msporny]: Ben: Let's take the existing document into consideration.
15:44:42 [msporny]: Ben: We now have a consistent internal story, what do we need to do to the current document.
15:45:06 [msporny]: Ben: If the namespace document contains a GRDDL @profile, the document does not.
15:45:32 [msporny]: Shane: GRDDL states that you should use @profile in XHTML documents.
15:45:48 [msporny]: Ben: No, don't think that's the case.
15:46:14 [msporny]: Ben: GRDDL makes most sense at the namespace level, not the instance level.
15:47:10 [msporny]: Shane: TimBL wants the @profile to be in a non-normative appendix.
15:47:15 [msporny]: Ralph: He wants us to be clear.
15:47:34 [msporny]: Shane: We've agreed to change the namespace document.
15:48:01 [msporny]: Shane: Let's remove @profile.
15:48:13 [msporny]: Ralph: Don't think that would be a good move.
15:49:01 [msporny]: Ralph: We had that in there mostly for broken GRDDL implementations.
15:49:38 [msporny]: Ralph: So the solution to the deployment issue is to add an non-normative appendix.
15:50:12 [msporny]: Ralph: About the procedural concern about this being substantiative, we can mark it as a feature at risk.
15:50:22 [msporny]: Ralph: Informative appendix H is at risk - we could say.
15:51:03 [msporny]: Ben: This is editorial because if you build an implementation of RDFa, it will still work after this change is in there.
15:51:42 [msporny]: Ralph: We have 3 items that are SHOULD and none of them are necessary to find triples.
15:53:34 [msporny]: Shane: We have an appendix now that defines the DTD and is normative.
15:53:52 [msporny]: Shane: That appendix defines the system identifer for DTDs.
15:54:24 [msporny]: Shane: The SHOULD about the DTD should be removed to an appendix. We already say that you SHOULD use DOCTYPE.
15:55:02 [msporny]: Ralph: The appendix says here is the normative system identifier if you want to use it.
15:55:33 [msporny]: Ralph: We could leave it implicit that the way you use it is to put DOCTYPE in there.
15:55:39 [msporny]: Ralph: No need to write anything more informative.
15:55:48 [msporny]: Ben: Why not do it for clarity's sake.
15:56:07 [msporny]: Shane: We need this appendix.
15:56:12 [msporny]: Shane: for validation.
15:56:35 [Ralph]: PROPOSE: move the two items "SHOULD be a DOCTYPE" and "SHOULD be a @profile" from Section 4.1 to a new Informational Appendix "Deployment Advice"
15:56:36 [msporny]: Ben: So it sounds like we have an appendix that has current deployment advice. Use DOCTYPE and @profile if you want.
15:57:34 [benadida]: +1
15:57:43 [msporny]: +1
15:58:17 [msporny]: Shane: We should insert the appendix before the references.
15:58:20 [msporny]: Ralph: Sure
15:58:21 [msporny]: Ben: Sure.
15:59:23 [msporny]: RESOLVED: move the two items "SHOULD be a DOCTYPE" and "SHOULD be a @profile" from Section 4.1 to a new Informational Appendix "Deployment Advice"
15:59:42 [msporny]: Ben: I'll chat with Mark and Steven about this to make sure they're okay with this.
16:00:05 [msporny]: Ralph: We'll probably need some documentation from XHTML2.
16:00:11 [msporny]: Ben: We agree that this is an editorial change.
16:00:30 [msporny]: Ben: We don't need a formal vote on this.
16:00:55 [msporny]: Topic: Default Graph Language per TimBL's comment.
16:01:10 [msporny]: Ben: I thought TimBL was comfortable with this in his response.
16:01:12 [Ralph]: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/CR-rdfa-syntax-20080620/#processorconf
16:01:41 [msporny]: Ralph: The [default graph] language is fuzzy to TimBL.
16:03:09 [msporny]: Ben: It seems he's questioning what [default graph] means.
16:03:29 [msporny]: Ralph: There is no W3C recommendation that sufficiently defines [default graph]
16:03:39 [msporny]: Ralph: What we mean in this case is that the document has asserted these triples.
16:04:04 [msporny]: Ralph: Any other triples that the processor might choose to find, in this version of the spec, the document has not asserted.
16:04:21 [msporny]: Ralph: No W3C spec has described this.
16:04:28 [msporny]: Ben: Can we add 3 lines to define it.
16:04:36 [msporny]: Ralph: We should use different language
16:05:03 [msporny]: Ben: We went through this several times, so changing the language might not work well for everybody.
16:05:33 [msporny]: Ben: We've stuck with [default graph] for a number of reasons.
16:05:45 [msporny]: Ralph: I know we've talked about this several times.
16:05:49 [msporny]: Ben: Can't we just define this.
16:06:17 [msporny]: Shane: We do, it says it right at the top of this section: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/CR-rdfa-syntax-20080620/#processorconf
16:06:43 [msporny]: Ralph: We don't say that the [default graph] holds the triples that are asserted by this document.
16:07:03 [msporny]: Shane: A conforming RDFa Processor MUST make available to a consuming application a single [RDF graph] containing all possible triples generated by using the rules in the Processing Model section. This is called the [default graph].
16:07:16 [Ralph]: PROPOSE: add "The [default graph] is the graph of triples that are asserted by the document according to this specification."
16:08:00 [msporny]: Ralph: We are saying that the document asserts a certain set of triples, we are not saying that they do not assert any other triples.
16:08:08 [msporny]: Ben: I'd be happy with what you've proposed.
16:08:15 [msporny]: +1
16:09:24 [msporny]: Shane: "For the avoidance of doubt, tThe [default graph] is the graph of triples that are asserted by the document according to this specification."
16:10:16 [Ralph]: PROPOSE: add "The RDF semantics of the document include the triples that are in the [default graph]."
16:10:30 [ShaneM]: ShaneM has left #rdfa
16:10:39 [ShaneM]: ShaneM has joined #rdfa
16:14:12 [Ralph]: PROPOSE: add "This specification uses the term [default graph] to mean the graph of triples that are asserted by the document."
16:14:13 [ShaneM]: For the avoidance of doubt, the default graph contains all of the triples
16:14:13 [ShaneM]: asserted by a document according to the processing model.
16:15:28 [msporny]: Ben: When we say [default graph] we don't mean all triples asserted by all languages. We mean ONLY the triples generated by the RDFa specification.
16:15:48 [msporny]: Ralph: We are saying that document authors that use the processing model that we have described here are asserting triples.
16:15:58 [msporny]: Ben: You're trying to say something stronger?
16:16:24 [msporny]: Ben: We shouldn't allow this specification to allow OTHER triples defined in other documents to be placed into the [default graph]
16:17:06 [benadida]: he [default graph] is the graph of triples that, according to this specification, are asserted by the document.
16:18:11 [ShaneM]: PROPOSE: This specification uses the term <tref>default graph</tref> to mean all of the triples asserted by a document according to the <a href="#s_model">Processing Model</a> section.
16:20:15 [ShaneM]: PROPOSE:
16:20:15 [ShaneM]: <must>A conforming RDFa Processor MUST make available to a consuming application
16:20:15 [ShaneM]: a single <tref>RDF graph</tref> containing all possible triples generated by
16:20:15 [ShaneM]: using the rules in the <a href="#s_model">Processing Model</a> section. This is called
16:20:15 [ShaneM]: the <tdef>default graph</tdef>, and only contains the triples asserted by a document that are within this single RDF graph.
16:21:51 [ShaneM]: PROPOSE:
16:21:51 [ShaneM]: <must>A conforming RDFa Processor MUST make available to a consuming application
16:21:51 [ShaneM]: a single <tref>RDF graph</tref> containing all possible triples generated by
16:21:51 [ShaneM]: using the rules in the <a href="#s_model">Processing Model</a> section.</must>
16:21:51 [ShaneM]: This specification uses the term
16:21:52 [ShaneM]: <tdef>default graph</tdef> to mean all of the triples asserted by a document according to the <a href="#s_model">Processing Model</a> section.
16:22:16 [msporny]: Replace sentence "This is called the [default graph]" with "This specification uses the term <tref>default graph</tref> to mean all of the triples asserted by a document according to the <a href="#s_model">Processing Model</a> section."
16:22:34 [msporny]: +1
16:22:38 [Ralph]: +1
16:22:43 [msporny]: RESOLVED: Replace sentence "This is called the [default graph]" with "This specification uses the term <tref>default graph</tref> to mean all of the triples asserted by a document according to the <a href="#s_model">Processing Model</a> section."
16:23:31 [benadida]: +1
16:24:21 [ShaneM]: +1
16:24:32 [ShaneM]: W.r.t. the new appendix C....
16:24:33 [ShaneM]: <sec-start "3" "a_deployment" "Deployment Advice" "" "">
16:24:33 [ShaneM]: This section is informative.
16:24:33 [ShaneM]: Documents written using the markup language defined in
16:24:33 [ShaneM]: this specification can be validated using the
16:24:33 [ShaneM]: DTD defined in <a href="#a_xhtmlrdfa_dtd">Appendix A</a>. If a document author wants
16:24:35 [ShaneM]: to faciliate such validation, they may include the following
16:24:37 [ShaneM]: declaration at the top of their document:
16:24:39 [ShaneM]
16:24:41 [ShaneM]: Authors who want to be certain their documents are
16:24:43 [ShaneM]: transformable by <nref>GRDDL</nref> processors could
16:24:45 [ShaneM]: use the <code>profile</code> attribute as permitted by
16:24:47 [ShaneM]: the GRDDL Recommendation in the following way:
16:27:23 [Zakim]: -ShaneM
16:27:45 [Zakim]: -Ralph
16:27:46 [Zakim]: -Ben_Adida
16:27:46 [Zakim]: -msporny
16:27:48 [Zakim]: SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended
16:27:49 [Zakim]: Attendees were Ralph, msporny, Ben_Adida, ShaneM
16:28:49 [msporny]: rrsagent, draft minutes
16:28:49 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-rdfa-minutes.html msporny
16:41:48 [ShaneM]: okay - updated editos draft is up at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080619/
17:26:21 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #rdfa
19:19:54 [Ralph]: rrsagent, bye
19:19:54 [RRSAgent]: I see no action items