IRC log of rdfa on 2008-08-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:55:05 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:55:05 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:55:09 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:55:15 [Ralph]
Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML Task Force
14:55:21 [Ralph]
zakim, this will be rdfa
14:55:21 [Zakim]
ok, Ralph; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
14:55:26 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please make record public
14:55:42 [Ralph]
14:56:06 [Ralph]
-> previous 2008-08-21
14:59:37 [msporny]
Did Ben send regrets?
14:59:53 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started
14:59:56 [msporny]
... nor Steven or Jeremy?
15:00:02 [Zakim]
15:00:07 [ShaneM]
steven said he was coming
15:00:39 [Zakim]
15:00:47 [markbirbeck]
zakim, code?
15:00:47 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck
15:01:18 [Zakim]
15:01:19 [Zakim]
15:01:25 [msporny]
zakim, I am ??P35
15:01:25 [Zakim]
+msporny; got it
15:01:34 [markbirbeck]
zakim, i am ?p35
15:01:34 [Zakim]
sorry, markbirbeck, I do not see a party named '?p35'
15:01:44 [markbirbeck]
zakim, i am ??p35
15:01:44 [Zakim]
sorry, markbirbeck, I do not see a party named '??p35'
15:02:04 [markbirbeck]
zakim, i am getting fed up with you
15:02:04 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'i am getting fed up with you', markbirbeck
15:02:14 [msporny]
zakim, I am ??IPcaller
15:02:14 [Zakim]
sorry, msporny, I do not see a party named '??IPcaller'
15:02:23 [msporny]
zakim, I am IPcaller
15:02:23 [Zakim]
ok, msporny, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
15:02:28 [markbirbeck]
zakim, i am ?
15:02:28 [Zakim]
sorry, markbirbeck, I do not see a party named '?'
15:02:37 [markbirbeck]
zakim, i am ??P35
15:02:37 [Zakim]
sorry, markbirbeck, I do not see a party named '??P35'
15:02:48 [markbirbeck]
zakim, i am P35
15:02:48 [Zakim]
sorry, markbirbeck, I do not see a party named 'P35'
15:02:51 [Steven]
Steven has joined #rdfa
15:02:56 [markbirbeck]
zakim, i am ?p35
15:02:56 [Zakim]
sorry, markbirbeck, I do not see a party named '?p35'
15:03:11 [markbirbeck]
zakim, callers
15:03:11 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'callers', markbirbeck
15:03:17 [Steven]
zakim, call steven-617
15:03:17 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:03:18 [Zakim]
15:03:33 [Steven]
zakim, drop steven
15:03:33 [Zakim]
Steven is being disconnected
15:03:34 [Zakim]
15:03:35 [Ralph]
zakim, msporny is really Mark
15:03:35 [Zakim]
+Mark; got it
15:03:45 [Ralph]
zakim, ipcaller is msporny
15:03:45 [Zakim]
+msporny; got it
15:04:07 [Steven]
zakim, dial steven-617
15:04:07 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:04:09 [Zakim]
15:04:24 [Zakim]
15:04:36 [Steven]
zakimm call steven-617
15:04:44 [Steven]
zakim, call steven-617
15:04:44 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:04:46 [Zakim]
15:05:37 [Steven]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ralph, ShaneM, msporny, Mark, Steven
15:06:27 [msporny]
15:06:35 [Ralph]
Chair: Manu
15:06:38 [Ralph]
Scribe: Ralph
15:06:52 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Jeremy review and consider expanding the description of TopBraid in the RDFa wiki [recorded in]
15:06:59 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Manu talk with Jamie McCarthy about an AskSlashdot piece [recorded in]
15:07:04 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Manu talk with Michael Smethurst at BBC about RDFa [recorded in]
15:07:11 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Manu write a pending test case for literal property and no child nodes [recorded in]
15:07:24 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph prepare to summarize new W3C test suite license on 28 Aug [recorded in]
15:07:28 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Jeremy to demonstrate GRDDL with XHTML/RDFa once the NS URI is set up. [recorded in]
15:07:29 [Zakim]
15:07:38 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Manu to create test cases for testing relative URI resolution (href/CURIEs/etc). [recorded in]
15:07:46 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Manu write the perl code for Slashdot [recorded in]
15:07:53 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Mark create base wizard suitable for cloning [recorded in]
15:08:02 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Mark write foaf examples for wiki [recorded in]
15:08:06 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in]
15:08:09 [benadida]
benadida has joined #rdfa
15:09:02 [msporny]
ACTION: Manu to write summary for Semantic Web Use Cases for Ivan.
15:09:17 [msporny]
ACTION: Manu to upload test harness source code to W3C CVS.
15:09:46 [Ralph]
[DONE] ACTION: Michael to update Test Suite Manifest to correct tests 52 and 53 descriptions. [recorded in]
15:09:52 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph think about RSS+RDFa [recorded in]
15:09:57 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ralph to make happen [recorded in]
15:10:01 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Shane to start a wiki page for HTML4/5 [recorded in]
15:10:08 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Shane to update XHTML ns document to point to new XSLT URI [recorded in]
15:10:14 [Ralph]
[PENDING] ACTION: Shane to write home page for SPREAD. [recorded in]
15:10:38 [Ralph]
Topic: Status of RDFa Syntax/Primer and CURIE spec
15:10:50 [Ralph]
Ben: let's not discuss CURIE spec but I'd like a status update
15:11:06 [Ralph]
Steven: the TAG asked for an extension of the comment period, which we've granted
15:11:29 [Ralph]
... so the actual deadline is the XHTML2 WG f2f at the Technical Plenary week
15:12:04 [Ralph]
Shane: we do have some editorial changes since the CURIE Last Call which you'll find reflected in the editor's draft
15:12:36 [Ralph]
Ben: anything the XHTML2 WG needs from us?
15:12:58 [Ralph]
Steven: the SemWeb Deployment WG agreed to provide a comment as well
15:13:24 [Ralph]
Ralph: and Jeremy has that action on behalf of SWD
15:13:45 [Ralph]
Ben: RDFa Syntax has been approved to go to PR by both SWD and XHTML2 WGs
15:14:08 [Ralph]
... we're missing a response from AlanR on issue 122
15:14:39 [Ralph]
... I neglected to ask the WG to explicitly review the Primer
15:14:51 [Ralph]
s/review/vote to publish
15:15:14 [Ralph]
ACTION: Ben ask SWD to approve publication of an updated RDFa Primer
15:15:59 [Ralph]
Ralph: what about NoahM's late comment?
15:16:14 [Ralph]
-> Ralph's proposed response to Noah
15:18:27 [msporny]
+1 for clarifying that RDFa applies to XHTML.
15:18:37 [Ralph]
Ralph: I propose an editorial change to the Abstract
15:18:39 [Steven]
15:21:41 [mcdave]
mcdave has joined #rdfa
15:21:46 [ShaneM]
q+ to discuss conformance requirements
15:23:44 [Ralph]
Ben: maybe the point about subsetting the graph is not correct anyway
15:23:56 [Ralph]
... if a parser only produces part of the graph, it may not be doing the right thing
15:24:04 [Ralph]
Manu: we shouldn't say that it's OK to ignore triples
15:24:17 [Ralph]
Ben: it would only be implementing half of the parser
15:24:51 [Ralph]
Shane: it's easy to separate the philosophical issue from the actual comment we have received
15:25:04 [Ralph]
... the comment suggests that we move the _processor_ conformance requirements elsewhere
15:25:07 [ShaneM]
15:25:09 [Ralph]
... I disagree with this comment
15:25:15 [Ralph]
... we have 3 subsections of our conformance requirements
15:25:28 [Ralph]
... 4.1 talks about _document_ conformance and is about markup
15:25:35 [Ralph]
... 4.2 talks about user agent conformance
15:25:41 [Ralph]
... 4.3 talks about processor conformance
15:25:49 [Ralph]
... these are all necessary and are all fine as they are
15:26:16 [Steven]
15:26:18 [Ralph]
... the philosophical discussion about whether it's ok to subset the triples would be a 4.4 and we don't need to have that discussion today
15:26:20 [Zakim]
ShaneM, you wanted to discuss conformance requirements
15:26:43 [Ralph]
... the sort of processor we've talked about is one that gives you _all_ the triples
15:27:50 [Ralph]
Ralph: agree with Shane's separation of those issues
15:28:10 [Ralph]
... don't engage in the philosophical debate about subsetting now
15:28:30 [Ralph]
Steven: I think Noah is thinking about optimizations
15:28:36 [Ralph]
... we don't need to say anything about this
15:28:57 [Ralph]
... if an application optimizes away something and we can't tell from the outside, it doesn't matter
15:29:13 [Ralph]
... if the application produces the same results as one that did not optimize, we don't care
15:30:08 [markbirbeck]
15:30:12 [Ralph]
... "as long as the output is the same as if the application had produced the full graph, we don't care"
15:30:24 [Ralph]
Ben: we just talk about producing the graph
15:30:36 [Ralph]
Shane: technically we just talk about the _processor_
15:30:56 [Ralph]
Ben: so the _application_ is out of our scope
15:31:55 [Ralph]
Mark: Noah may not be trying to distinguish between the application layer and the processor layer
15:32:53 [Ralph]
... however, the idea of the default graph runs through both the language and the processor and I don't see a simple way to separate these quickly
15:33:54 [mhausenblas]
mhausenblas has joined #rdfa
15:34:09 [Zakim]
15:34:10 [Ralph]
... I don't think the comment is so much about a distinction between application layers and processor layers
15:35:27 [Ralph]
Ralph: so a combination of Shane's 3 points and the idea that the default graph is intertwined throughout makes us not wish to do a major document rearrangement at this time
15:38:47 [Steven]
I think in Noah's mail that he meant <prefix:html xmlns:prefix="" xml:lang="en">"
15:39:28 [ShaneM]
New test: A strictly conforming XHTML+RDFa document is a document that requires only the facilities described as mandatory in this specification. Such a document satisfies the following criteria:
15:39:35 [ShaneM]
15:41:31 [Ralph]
ACTION: Ben add Noah's comments to the tracker
15:41:51 [Ralph]
Ben: I've already written the transform to produce the CR Disposition of Comments
15:42:07 [Ralph]
Shane: I've already integrated all of the changes proposed in Ralph's message
15:43:36 [Ralph]
Topic: HTML5/RDFa discussion
15:43:59 [Ralph]
Ben: background on why this discussion is taking place now rather than later
15:44:22 [Ralph]
... Creative Commons has been working on the ccRel specification for a while
15:44:39 [Ralph]
... we decided to submit it to W3C to be published as a Member Submission
15:44:55 [Ralph]
... it got a lot of attention when W3C published it
15:45:00 [Ralph]
... and it mentions RDFa
15:45:09 [Ralph]
... so that started the discussion
15:46:20 [mhausenblas]
-> my 2c on the ongoing HTML5 discussion :)
15:48:21 [Ralph]
-> @@ HTML5 discussion
15:49:08 [Ralph]
15:52:09 [Ralph]
Shane: why isn't this discussion on the HTML WG list?
15:52:14 [Ralph]
-> HTML WG list
15:54:39 [mhausenblas]
q+ re IR
15:54:45 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:54:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mhausenblas
15:54:59 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:55:52 [ShaneM]
been pondering HTML4 and RDFa - some noodling here:
15:56:30 [Ralph]
ACTION: Ralph update draft response to Noah
15:57:38 [Ralph]
Manu: there's not a lot of understanding of RDF, RDF/XML, and RDFa and the differences within the HTML WG; we're building an understanding of the benefits of structured data in markup
15:59:03 [Ralph]
Michael: I saw Guus' announcement requesting PR transition
15:59:10 [Ralph]
... should I update the implementation report now?
15:59:19 [Steven]
If all design was done by paving cow paths, no one would ever build bridges
16:01:10 [Ralph]
Ralph: sure, fine to add to the Implementation Report
16:01:26 [Ralph]
... it will be useful the the Director when the PR transition decision is made (next week)
16:01:42 [Ralph]
Topic: using RDFa as expression language?
16:02:02 [markbirbeck]
16:02:07 [Ralph]
Manu: folk are getting tired of the problem that a new microformats parser is needed every time a new microformat is created
16:02:38 [Ralph]
... the question now being considered within the microformats community is whether to reuse the RDFa attributes but not put URIs in them
16:02:45 [Ralph]
... what would we think about this?
16:02:55 [Ralph]
Mark: I like the sentiment but I take issue with the specifics
16:03:37 [Ralph]
... in a previous discussion we'd debated whether attributes ought to have different meanings in different contexts and decided they should not
16:03:57 [Ralph]
... now we have a fixed list of values recognized in CURIEs when they appear without a prefix
16:03:58 [benadida]
16:04:05 [Ralph]
... it would not be too hard to make that list extensible by others
16:04:30 [Ralph]
... e.g. within this DIV, unprefixed names come from <somewhere else>
16:04:36 [ShaneM]
q+ to discuss CURIEs and microformats
16:04:41 [Ralph]
... would be a bridge between microformats and RDFa
16:04:54 [Ralph]
Ben: I second that
16:04:56 [msporny]
16:05:15 [Ralph]
... microformats repurpose some HTML attributes
16:05:36 [Ralph]
... and the Accessiblity community raised issues with this; e.g. misuse of @title
16:06:01 [Ralph]
... as RDFa explicitly ignores other unprefixed values in CURIEs, that's an extensibility opportunity
16:06:11 [Ralph]
... but redefining @typeof would be a mistake
16:06:46 [Ralph]
... if the goal is to get to a single parser vs. a parser-per-microformat then our goal is to be sure that the markup always means the same thing
16:06:51 [Ralph]
... so let's work on that together
16:06:52 [msporny]
q+ abbr pattern and semantic mis-use of elements.
16:07:13 [Zakim]
ShaneM, you wanted to discuss CURIEs and microformats
16:07:38 [Ralph]
Shane: our reserved values _are_ interpreted as URIs at the end of the day
16:08:00 [Ralph]
Manu: what microformats really cares about is to be able to write @rel='title' without having to explain anything else
16:08:19 [Ralph]
... their concern is that to have to add a ':' would be difficult to explain to users
16:08:31 [Ralph]
... the underlying implementation is less of a concern; it's about the actual markup
16:09:30 [markbirbeck]
I believe the key to this is to make a really simple 'flip' in CURIEs (wish we'd thought of it before). Instead of @rel="license" being an 'unprefixed' value, we should see it as 'unsuffixed'.
16:09:35 [Ralph]
Shane: we'll need to prioritize where we put our effort next and this could be it if it gets the microformat community into the fold more quickly
16:10:03 [markbirbeck]
Then all we're concerned about is providing more and more techniques for defining prefixes.
16:10:16 [markbirbeck]
@xmlns was always seen as only one way to define a prefix.
16:10:26 [Ralph]
Manu: as long as there's someone from RDFa advising the microformat community we should be in good shape
16:11:08 [Ralph]
Ben: I appreciate Mark's foresight in pushing for RDFa to ignore unprefixed values
16:12:00 [Ralph]
16:12:23 [Ralph]
Michael: regrets for next week
16:12:24 [msporny]
ACTION: Manu to work with Microformats community to address RDFa as unified markup for uFs.
16:12:29 [Zakim]
16:12:31 [Zakim]
16:12:31 [Zakim]
16:12:32 [Zakim]
16:12:33 [Zakim]
16:12:35 [Zakim]
16:12:35 [Zakim]
16:12:39 [Ralph]
Ralph: I'm available next week but not the two weeks after that
16:12:44 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended
16:12:45 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ralph, ShaneM, Steven, Mark, msporny, Ben_Adida, Michael_Hausenblas
16:12:55 [Ralph]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:12:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Ralph
16:13:17 [Ralph]
zakim, bye
16:13:17 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfa
16:13:19 [Ralph]
rrsagent, bye
16:13:19 [RRSAgent]
I see 6 open action items saved in :
16:13:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Manu to write summary for Semantic Web Use Cases for Ivan. [1]
16:13:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:13:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Manu to upload test harness source code to W3C CVS. [2]
16:13:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:13:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben ask SWD to approve publication of an updated RDFa Primer [3]
16:13:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:13:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben add Noah's comments to the tracker [4]
16:13:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:13:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph update draft response to Noah [5]
16:13:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:13:19 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Manu to work with Microformats community to address RDFa as unified markup for uFs. [6]
16:13:19 [RRSAgent]
recorded in