13:12:26 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/15-rdfa-irc ←
13:12:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:12:30 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
13:12:30 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 48 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 48 minutes ←
13:12:31 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:12:31 <trackbot> Date: 15 September 2011
13:13:19 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda, Sept. 15: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Sep/0067.html
Ivan Herman: ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda, Sept. 15: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Sep/0067.html ←
13:45:38 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Sep/0067.html
13:45:42 <manu1> Chair: Manu
13:45:42 <manu1> Guest: Niklas (lindstream) Lindström
13:45:42 <manu1> Guest: Toby (tinkster) Inkster
13:55:02 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 41 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started ←
13:55:09 <Zakim> +??P2
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2 ←
13:55:17 <SebastianGermesin> Zakim, I am P2
Sebastian Germesin: Zakim, I am P2 ←
13:55:17 <Zakim> sorry, SebastianGermesin, I do not see a party named 'P2'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, SebastianGermesin, I do not see a party named 'P2' ←
13:55:30 <SebastianGermesin> Zakim, I am +??P2
Sebastian Germesin: Zakim, I am +??P2 ←
13:55:30 <Zakim> sorry, SebastianGermesin, I do not see a party named '+??P2'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, SebastianGermesin, I do not see a party named '+??P2' ←
13:55:42 <SebastianGermesin> Zakim, I am ??P2
Sebastian Germesin: Zakim, I am ??P2 ←
13:55:42 <Zakim> +SebastianGermesin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SebastianGermesin; got it ←
13:58:05 <Zakim> +??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6 ←
13:58:09 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P6
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P6 ←
13:58:09 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
13:58:39 <Zakim> +??P9
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P9 ←
13:58:47 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P9
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P9 ←
13:58:47 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
13:59:40 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
13:59:40 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
13:59:41 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
14:00:37 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
14:00:42 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
14:00:42 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
14:00:43 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
14:00:43 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
14:01:39 <Zakim> +??P29
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P29 ←
14:01:41 <ShaneM> zakim, I am ??P29
Shane McCarron: zakim, I am ??P29 ←
14:01:47 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM; got it ←
14:02:07 <Zakim> +aharon
Zakim IRC Bot: +aharon ←
14:03:12 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:03:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see SebastianGermesin, manu1, gkellogg, Ivan, MacTed (muted), ShaneM, aharon
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see SebastianGermesin, manu1, gkellogg, Ivan, MacTed (muted), ShaneM, aharon ←
14:04:02 <Zakim> +??P35
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P35 ←
14:04:08 <manu1> scribenick: Manu
(Scribe set to Manu Sporny)
14:04:13 <lindstream> zakim, I am ??P35
Niklas Lindström: zakim, I am ??P35 ←
14:04:24 <manu1> Manu: Any updates/changes to Agenda?
Manu Sporny: Any updates/changes to Agenda? ←
14:04:26 <Zakim> +lindstream; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +lindstream; got it ←
14:04:45 <manu1> Manu: Anything new that's happening that we should be aware of?
Manu Sporny: Anything new that's happening that we should be aware of? ←
14:05:02 <lindstream> zakim, who is on the call?
Niklas Lindström: zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:05:02 <manu1> zakim, aharon is tomayac
zakim, aharon is tomayac ←
14:05:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see SebastianGermesin, manu1, gkellogg, Ivan, MacTed (muted), ShaneM, aharon, lindstream
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see SebastianGermesin, manu1, gkellogg, Ivan, MacTed (muted), ShaneM, aharon, lindstream ←
14:05:05 <Zakim> +tomayac; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +tomayac; got it ←
14:06:34 <Zakim> +Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven ←
14:08:39 <manu1> We have received comments from a large industry concerning schema.org and their frustration with the entire launch process.
We have received comments from a large industry concerning schema.org and their frustration with the entire launch process. ←
14:10:43 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:10:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see SebastianGermesin, manu1, gkellogg, Ivan, MacTed (muted), ShaneM, tomayac, lindstream, Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see SebastianGermesin, manu1, gkellogg, Ivan, MacTed (muted), ShaneM, tomayac, lindstream, Steven ←
14:10:58 <Zakim> + +20592aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +20592aaaa ←
14:11:08 <Steven> zakim, aaaa is me
Steven Pemberton: zakim, aaaa is me ←
14:11:08 <Zakim> +Steven; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven; got it ←
14:11:39 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-106: Ordered Lists
14:11:48 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/106
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/106 ←
14:12:24 <Zakim> -Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: -Steven ←
14:12:24 <manu1> Ivan: We had a discussion last week - we didn't feel like doing a formal resolution. I sent out an e-mail to the mailing list asking if there was general support.
Ivan Herman: We had a discussion last week - we didn't feel like doing a formal resolution. I sent out an e-mail to the mailing list asking if there was general support. ←
14:12:40 <manu1> Ivan: I think we could have a formal resolution that the group in principle wants to have ordered list syntax.
Ivan Herman: I think we could have a formal resolution that the group in principle wants to have ordered list syntax. ←
14:13:03 <manu1> Ivan: What exactly it should look like is a separate issue. There has been some technical discussion - outlined on the wiki.
Ivan Herman: What exactly it should look like is a separate issue. There has been some technical discussion - outlined on the wiki. ←
14:13:15 <Zakim> +scor
Zakim IRC Bot: +scor ←
14:13:23 <manu1> Ivan: Gregg's implementation notes describe how to change the processing rules to include list support.
Ivan Herman: Gregg's implementation notes describe how to change the processing rules to include list support. ←
14:13:42 <manu1> Ivan: We should treat those two things separately.
Ivan Herman: We should treat those two things separately. ←
14:14:17 <manu1> Manu: Any concerns about list support in RDFa?
Manu Sporny: Any concerns about list support in RDFa? ←
14:14:25 <manu1> Steven: What about backwards compatibility?
Steven Pemberton: What about backwards compatibility? ←
14:14:41 <lindstream> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Sep/0068.html
Niklas Lindström: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Sep/0068.html ←
14:14:42 <gkellogg> Link to List description: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Lists
Gregg Kellogg: Link to List description: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Lists ←
14:14:55 <manu1> Ivan: With the new version, order may generate different triples from RDFa 1.0
Ivan Herman: With the new version, order may generate different triples from RDFa 1.0 ←
14:15:27 <manu1> Steven: Not against lists - just concerned about backwards compatibility.
Steven Pemberton: Not against lists - just concerned about backwards compatibility. ←
14:16:27 <lindstream> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
14:16:50 <manu1> Manu: Are lists absolutely required? Gregg seems to be the only person with a pretty solid use case.
Manu Sporny: Are lists absolutely required? Gregg seems to be the only person with a pretty solid use case. ←
14:16:59 <tomayac> ordered lists can be useful for modeling events => e.g. lineups of festivals
Thomas Steiner: ordered lists can be useful for modeling events => e.g. lineups of festivals ←
14:17:07 <manu1> Ivan: It's not that something cannot be achieved w/o them... it's that lists are absolutely awful to do in RDFa 1.0.
Ivan Herman: It's not that something cannot be achieved w/o them... it's that lists are absolutely awful to do in RDFa 1.0. ←
14:17:37 <manu1> Ivan: Bibliographic data - article lists, library catalog, anything like that - co-authors order is very important.
Ivan Herman: Bibliographic data - article lists, library catalog, anything like that - co-authors order is very important. ←
14:17:43 <lindstream> ... bibo:authorList
Niklas Lindström: ... bibo:authorList ←
14:18:09 <manu1> q+ to ask about how we access lists in RDF.
q+ to ask about how we access lists in RDF. ←
14:18:13 <manu1> ack lindstream
ack lindstream ←
14:18:26 <MacTed> order is important in other credits also -- e.g., movie credits, play and other performer billing order
Ted Thibodeau: order is important in other credits also -- e.g., movie credits, play and other performer billing order ←
14:18:28 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
14:18:32 <manu1> lindstream: The final use case is for OWL constructs - unionOf in range... we should have support for lists.
Niklas Lindström: The final use case is for OWL constructs - unionOf in range... we should have support for lists. ←
14:18:35 <manu1> ack manu1
ack manu1 ←
14:18:35 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to ask about how we access lists in RDF.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to ask about how we access lists in RDF. ←
14:19:09 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:19:26 <manu1> ack gkellogg
ack gkellogg ←
14:19:42 <manu1> Manu: I'm not convinced that this is going to help people - RDF lists are /very/ difficult to work with.
Manu Sporny: I'm not convinced that this is going to help people - RDF lists are /very/ difficult to work with. ←
14:19:49 <MacTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
14:19:56 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:19:56 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←
14:19:57 <lindstream> q+ to mention list problems
Niklas Lindström: q+ to mention list problems ←
14:20:38 <manu1> Gregg: schema.org is difficult w/o lists... linked list concept is very difficult... SPARQL deals w/ lists more intelligently. Also, I think people that do stuff w/ HTML expect document order. Complains people have about RDFa don't relate to processing steps... they relate to the complex rules of markup.
Gregg Kellogg: schema.org is difficult w/o lists... linked list concept is very difficult... SPARQL deals w/ lists more intelligently. Also, I think people that do stuff w/ HTML expect document order. Complains people have about RDFa don't relate to processing steps... they relate to the complex rules of markup. ←
14:20:44 <manu1> ack ivan
ack ivan ←
14:20:46 <ivan> q-
Ivan Herman: q- ←
14:20:49 <manu1> ack MacTed
ack MacTed ←
14:21:32 <manu1> MacTed: Difficulty in current use does not stand against something that makes later use better. People don't use ordered lists right now because they're a nightmare. If we make it easier to markup, more people will use them.
Ted Thibodeau: Difficulty in current use does not stand against something that makes later use better. People don't use ordered lists right now because they're a nightmare. If we make it easier to markup, more people will use them. ←
14:21:39 <manu1> q+ to ask about SAX-based processors.
q+ to ask about SAX-based processors. ←
14:21:47 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
14:21:47 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
14:21:51 <manu1> ack lindstream
ack lindstream ←
14:21:51 <Zakim> lindstream, you wanted to mention list problems
Zakim IRC Bot: lindstream, you wanted to mention list problems ←
14:22:56 <manu1> lindstream: There is a conceptual problem w/ lists in graph information theory - lists in JSON don't necessarily indicate order - the way the order is derived is not apparent. Most things are not naturally ordered, we use ordering based on the predicates in a set - ordering alphabetically or by date. There is a very distinct use of sets in RDF and the use of lists in RDF.
Niklas Lindström: There is a conceptual problem w/ lists in graph information theory - lists in JSON don't necessarily indicate order - the way the order is derived is not apparent. Most things are not naturally ordered, we use ordering based on the predicates in a set - ordering alphabetically or by date. There is a very distinct use of sets in RDF and the use of lists in RDF. ←
14:23:18 <manu1> lindstream: This is not apparent to users. I support lists, but we should add something about this conceptual difference between sets and lists.
Niklas Lindström: This is not apparent to users. I support lists, but we should add something about this conceptual difference between sets and lists. ←
14:23:20 <manu1> ack manu1
ack manu1 ←
14:23:21 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to ask about SAX-based processors.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to ask about SAX-based processors. ←
14:23:47 <manu1> Manu: What state has to be stored? Does it work well with SAX-based processors?
Manu Sporny: What state has to be stored? Does it work well with SAX-based processors? ←
14:25:01 <manu1> Gregg: There is extra state that is stored in the evaluation context... it could be passed through an incomplete triple mapping. Ivan's mechanism doesn't require that. State transfer is not particularly difficult to implement. The current algorithm is tail-recursive - this new version has a step after the tail-recursive mechanism. You may generate a list after the tail-recursive mechanism.
Gregg Kellogg: There is extra state that is stored in the evaluation context... it could be passed through an incomplete triple mapping. Ivan's mechanism doesn't require that. State transfer is not particularly difficult to implement. The current algorithm is tail-recursive - this new version has a step after the tail-recursive mechanism. You may generate a list after the tail-recursive mechanism. ←
14:25:07 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:25:22 <manu1> Gregg: I found it more convenient to explain it like I did. It could be done in another way.
Gregg Kellogg: I found it more convenient to explain it like I did. It could be done in another way. ←
14:25:25 <manu1> ack Ivan
ack Ivan ←
14:26:13 <manu1> Ivan: I did not think through the whole thing in this sense. I agree w/ Gregg. The way the algorithm is described now is pretty clear. You could pile everything up as you go. You don't need this last step at every element. At end of processing, you could generate the list triples. That may be better for a SAX-based implementation.
Ivan Herman: I did not think through the whole thing in this sense. I agree w/ Gregg. The way the algorithm is described now is pretty clear. You could pile everything up as you go. You don't need this last step at every element. At end of processing, you could generate the list triples. That may be better for a SAX-based implementation. ←
14:26:15 <manu1> q+
q+ ←
14:26:17 <manu1> ack manu1
ack manu1 ←
14:26:21 <ivan> ack manu1
Ivan Herman: ack manu1 ←
14:27:11 <manu1> Manu: I'm just concerned about the size of the state information and that we don't have to jump around the DOM.
Manu Sporny: I'm just concerned about the size of the state information and that we don't have to jump around the DOM. ←
14:27:25 <manu1> Ivan: We're not talking about a large amount of data here... just small elements of the page.
Ivan Herman: We're not talking about a large amount of data here... just small elements of the page. ←
14:27:50 <tomayac> FWIW, I'm pro adding ordered lists
Thomas Steiner: FWIW, I'm pro adding ordered lists ←
14:28:08 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Add ordered list support to RDFa 1.1.
PROPOSED: Add ordered list support to RDFa 1.1. ←
14:28:12 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
14:28:13 <manu1> Manu: +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:28:13 <tomayac> +1
Thomas Steiner: +1 ←
14:28:13 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:28:13 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:28:14 <lindstream> This is what we generate - rdf:List using rdf:first, rdf:next, rdf:nil
Niklas Lindström: This is what we generate - rdf:List using rdf:first, rdf:next, rdf:nil ←
14:28:15 <lindstream> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
14:28:17 <SebastianGermesin> +1
Sebastian Germesin: +1 ←
14:28:17 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:28:19 <scor> +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
14:28:24 <Zakim> -tomayac
Zakim IRC Bot: -tomayac ←
14:28:27 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:28:32 <manu1> RESOLVED: Add ordered list support to RDFa 1.1.
RESOLVED: Add ordered list support to RDFa 1.1. ←
14:28:52 <manu1> Manu: Do we want to have the technical discussion on the call today?
Manu Sporny: Do we want to have the technical discussion on the call today? ←
14:29:12 <manu1> Ivan: We already had technical discussion on the list - Gregg's algorithm already has 2 independent implementations.
Ivan Herman: We already had technical discussion on the list - Gregg's algorithm already has 2 independent implementations. ←
14:29:24 <manu1> Ivan: Why don't we go w/ Gregg's proposal and see what the community says?
Ivan Herman: Why don't we go w/ Gregg's proposal and see what the community says? ←
14:30:08 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:30:08 <manu1> Ivan: Gregg's implementation is the minimal syntax addition that we'd need to support lists - let's just go with that.
Ivan Herman: Gregg's implementation is the minimal syntax addition that we'd need to support lists - let's just go with that. ←
14:30:15 <manu1> ack ivan
ack ivan ←
14:30:51 <manu1> Ivan: The current one, from a user point of view - it's pretty simple. You just add something simple "member". The more serious issue is the backwards compatibility issue.
Ivan Herman: The current one, from a user point of view - it's pretty simple. You just add something simple "member". The more serious issue is the backwards compatibility issue. ←
14:31:13 <manu1> Ivan: The graph that is generated with the new markup will be different from RDFa 1.0 processor.
Ivan Herman: The graph that is generated with the new markup will be different from RDFa 1.0 processor. ←
14:31:18 <lindstream> <> dc:creator (<a> <b> <c>) VS. <> dc:creator <a>, <b>, <c>
Niklas Lindström: <> dc:creator (<a> <b> <c>) VS. <> dc:creator <a>, <b>, <c> ←
14:31:33 <manu1> Ivan: We need to acknowledge the backwards-compat issue... I think that we could live with it.
Ivan Herman: We need to acknowledge the backwards-compat issue... I think that we could live with it. ←
14:31:51 <lindstream> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
14:31:53 <manu1> Ivan: The graph, semantically, is close to the RDFa 1.1 version - I think we can live with this.
Ivan Herman: The graph, semantically, is close to the RDFa 1.1 version - I think we can live with this. ←
14:31:54 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about backward compat
Shane McCarron: q+ to talk about backward compat ←
14:32:05 <lindstream> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Sep/0068.html
Niklas Lindström: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Sep/0068.html ←
14:32:15 <manu1> lindstream: I wonder if we should raise separate issues for this?
Niklas Lindström: I wonder if we should raise separate issues for this? ←
14:32:30 <manu1> ack lindstream
ack lindstream ←
14:33:22 <manu1> ShaneM: My question is wrt to backward compatibility - don't we have other features that screw w/ RDFa 1.0 - we have @vocab and @prefix... I think we don't have a proper announcement mechanism, we're going to have issues like this.
Shane McCarron: My question is wrt to backward compatibility - don't we have other features that screw w/ RDFa 1.0 - we have @vocab and @prefix... I think we don't have a proper announcement mechanism, we're going to have issues like this. ←
14:33:26 <lindstream> .. @version?
Niklas Lindström: .. @version? ←
14:33:48 <lindstream> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
14:33:50 <manu1> ShaneM: We have an appendix that tells people how to publish data that works with both RDFa 1.0 and RDFa 1.1 - we could add something to that section.
Shane McCarron: We have an appendix that tells people how to publish data that works with both RDFa 1.0 and RDFa 1.1 - we could add something to that section. ←
14:33:54 <manu1> Ivan: I agree with Shane.
Ivan Herman: I agree with Shane. ←
14:33:56 <manu1> ack Shanem
ack Shanem ←
14:33:56 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about backward compat
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to talk about backward compat ←
14:33:58 <ivan> ack ShaneM
Ivan Herman: ack ShaneM ←
14:34:00 <manu1> ack lindstream
ack lindstream ←
14:34:15 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:34:17 <manu1> lindstream: I agree w/ Ivan - it's important to notice this, but the effect is fine.
Niklas Lindström: I agree w/ Ivan - it's important to notice this, but the effect is fine. ←
14:34:18 <ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#major-differences-with-rdfa-syntax-1.0
Shane McCarron: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#major-differences-with-rdfa-syntax-1.0 ←
14:34:20 <manu1> ack Ivan
ack Ivan ←
14:34:49 <ivan> onlist
Ivan Herman: onlist ←
14:35:01 <lindstream> .. or "listitem" or "inlist".
Niklas Lindström: .. or "listitem" or "inlist". ←
14:35:05 <manu1> Ivan: The first issue that Niklas raised is a small thing - the attribute name that we should use - for historical reasons, we said @member... perhaps we should have @onlist? @onlist seems intuitive?
Ivan Herman: The first issue that Niklas raised is a small thing - the attribute name that we should use - for historical reasons, we said @member... perhaps we should have @onlist? @onlist seems intuitive? ←
14:35:06 <ShaneM> I don't really like onlist...
Shane McCarron: I don't really like onlist... ←
14:35:13 <ShaneM> it's not English
Shane McCarron: it's not English ←
14:35:36 <lindstream> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
14:35:37 <ShaneM> listitem sounds like a microdata attribute
Shane McCarron: listitem sounds like a microdata attribute ←
14:35:41 <manu1> Manu: Don't like @onlist either... @listitem is nice.
Manu Sporny: Don't like @onlist either... @listitem is nice. ←
14:35:49 <tinkster> @inlist
Toby Inkster: @inlist ←
14:36:21 <ShaneM> listmember
Shane McCarron: listmember ←
14:36:34 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
14:36:39 <manu1> ack lindstream
ack lindstream ←
14:36:46 <manu1> Ivan: I'd like to resolve this soon.
Ivan Herman: I'd like to resolve this soon. ←
14:37:18 <lindstream> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
14:37:26 <scor> can't we choose a name now and eventually change it later? (it's just a string replace)
Stéphane Corlosquet: can't we choose a name now and eventually change it later? (it's just a string replace) ←
14:37:42 <manu1> Gregg: I think I agree with Ivan - we have discussed this quite a bit, still some details - if there are issues with specific naming, we should proceed with something @onlist or @inlist, and we can change it at a later date. Let's get the processing steps down. Send a message to say that RDFa supports lists.
Gregg Kellogg: I think I agree with Ivan - we have discussed this quite a bit, still some details - if there are issues with specific naming, we should proceed with something @onlist or @inlist, and we can change it at a later date. Let's get the processing steps down. Send a message to say that RDFa supports lists. ←
14:37:44 <manu1> ack gkellogg
ack gkellogg ←
14:38:05 <manu1> lindstream: I agree that we should decide on something and carry on - we should remember how we've been criticized for unintuitive names.
Niklas Lindström: I agree that we should decide on something and carry on - we should remember how we've been criticized for unintuitive names. ←
14:38:15 <ShaneM> +1 for inlist
Shane McCarron: +1 for inlist ←
14:38:19 <manu1> lindstream: We should decide on something that everybody understands.
Niklas Lindström: We should decide on something that everybody understands. ←
14:38:39 <SebastianGermesin> ok
Sebastian Germesin: ok ←
14:38:45 <manu1> Manu: Lots of support for @inlist.
Manu Sporny: Lots of support for @inlist. ←
14:38:51 <manu1> ... let's do that.
... let's do that. ←
14:38:58 <manu1> Ivan: What was the 3rd issue?
Ivan Herman: What was the 3rd issue? ←
14:39:35 <manu1> lindstream: Should we support @rel and @property with @member - if nobody else has issues, I have no solution that works with subsequent related problems. Everyone should think about it and we should raise an issue if it becomes a problem.
Niklas Lindström: Should we support @rel and @property with @member - if nobody else has issues, I have no solution that works with subsequent related problems. Everyone should think about it and we should raise an issue if it becomes a problem. ←
14:40:03 <manu1> lindstream: One thing that bugs me is that normally this...
Niklas Lindström: One thing that bugs me is that normally this... ←
14:40:04 <tinkster> As I'm currently not a WG member, I hereby disclaim all trademarks, patents, and other legal and moral rights over the use of @inlist.
Toby Inkster: As I'm currently not a WG member, I hereby disclaim all trademarks, patents, and other legal and moral rights over the use of @inlist. ←
14:40:05 <lindstream> inlist="inlist"
Niklas Lindström: inlist="inlist" ←
14:40:08 <lindstream> inlist=""
Niklas Lindström: inlist="" ←
14:40:28 <manu1> lindstream: If the last one is the way it will work, I'm fine with it.
Niklas Lindström: If the last one is the way it will work, I'm fine with it. ←
14:40:36 <manu1> Ivan: The processing steps don't care about @inlist attribute.
Ivan Herman: The processing steps don't care about @inlist attribute. ←
14:40:44 <ShaneM> in XML inlist="" is legitimate
Shane McCarron: in XML inlist="" is legitimate ←
14:40:47 <manu1> Ivan: They disregard the value.
Ivan Herman: They disregard the value. ←
14:41:20 <ShaneM> q+ to answer Niklas
Shane McCarron: q+ to answer Niklas ←
14:41:29 <manu1> lindstream: I heard that empty attributes should be expressed as checked="checked" ... is that true?
Niklas Lindström: I heard that empty attributes should be expressed as checked="checked" ... is that true? ←
14:41:33 <manu1> ack lindstream
ack lindstream ←
14:41:35 <manu1> ack shanem
ack shanem ←
14:41:35 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to answer Nicklaus
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to answer Nicklaus ←
14:41:53 <manu1> ShaneM: The reason XHTML did checked="checked" is because SGML did that...
Shane McCarron: The reason XHTML did checked="checked" is because SGML did that... ←
14:42:08 <manu1> ShaneM: There is no rule in XML for it and there is no rule in M12N for it.
Shane McCarron: There is no rule in XML for it and there is no rule in M12N for it. ←
14:42:25 <manu1> Niklas: Ok, that works for me.
Niklas Lindström: Ok, that works for me. ←
14:42:26 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
14:42:30 <manu1> Manu: So, what's the guidance.
Manu Sporny: So, what's the guidance. ←
14:42:35 <ShaneM> #IMPLIED
Shane McCarron: #IMPLIED ←
14:42:51 <manu1> ShaneM: It's value is #IMPLIED - it has no value list... "" is perfectly legitimate.
Shane McCarron: It's value is #IMPLIED - it has no value list... "" is perfectly legitimate. ←
14:43:16 <manu1> Manu: So in HTML5 it'll be inlist
Manu Sporny: So in HTML5 it'll be inlist ←
14:43:48 <manu1> ShaneM: And in XHTML it'll be inlist=""
Shane McCarron: And in XHTML it'll be inlist="" ←
14:44:17 <manu1> Gregg: This is just like @typeof... which doesn't need to have a value. With respect to the test suite, we should do inlist=""
Gregg Kellogg: This is just like @typeof... which doesn't need to have a value. With respect to the test suite, we should do inlist="" ←
14:44:32 <manu1> Gregg: I think we can leave it off in practice, but we should not promote it.
Gregg Kellogg: I think we can leave it off in practice, but we should not promote it. ←
14:44:54 <gkellogg> Wiki at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Lists
Gregg Kellogg: Wiki at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Lists ←
14:45:40 <gkellogg> Actually, the second part of that Wiki
Gregg Kellogg: Actually, the second part of that Wiki ←
14:46:02 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Adopt Gregg's List proposal at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Lists with the list-triggering attribute as @inlist.
PROPOSED: Adopt Gregg's List proposal at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Lists with the list-triggering attribute as @inlist. ←
14:46:07 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
14:46:07 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:46:08 <lindstream> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
14:46:09 <manu1> Manu: +0 Only because I haven't had time to review it.
Manu Sporny: +0 Only because I haven't had time to review it. ←
14:46:09 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:46:10 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:46:12 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:46:45 <SebastianGermesin> +1
Sebastian Germesin: +1 ←
14:46:53 <scor> +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
14:47:07 <manu1> RESOLVED: Adopt Gregg's List proposal at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Lists with the list-triggering attribute as @inlist.
RESOLVED: Adopt Gregg's List proposal at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Lists with the list-triggering attribute as @inlist. ←
14:47:43 <ShaneM> Ivan Rocks
Shane McCarron: Ivan Rocks ←
14:48:08 <gkellogg> I'll add examples to the test suite
Gregg Kellogg: I'll add examples to the test suite ←
14:48:15 <manu1> Ivan: I have just committed the source version - it's in the spec. Shane still has to verify that it's valid text. I also updated the Primer to have an example.
Ivan Herman: I have just committed the source version - it's in the spec. Shane still has to verify that it's valid text. I also updated the Primer to have an example. ←
14:48:19 <lindstream> Cool!
Niklas Lindström: Cool! ←
14:48:40 <manu1> Ivan: We should send a formal reply to Jeni.
Ivan Herman: We should send a formal reply to Jeni. ←
14:49:02 <ShaneM> Note - I went through and cleared out my old action items that were complete. everyone should do this
Shane McCarron: Note - I went through and cleared out my old action items that were complete. everyone should do this ←
14:49:05 <manu1> ACTION: Manu to respond to Jeni about ISSUE-106 - that we added ordered list support to RDFa 1.1
ACTION: Manu to respond to Jeni about ISSUE-106 - that we added ordered list support to RDFa 1.1 ←
14:49:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-94 - Respond to Jeni about ISSUE-106 - that we added ordered list support to RDFa 1.1 [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-09-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-94 - Respond to Jeni about ISSUE-106 - that we added ordered list support to RDFa 1.1 [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-09-22]. ←
14:49:21 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-107: @src attribute as object
14:49:29 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/107
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/107 ←
14:49:54 <manu1> Ivan: This came up via Jeni and earlier with people realizing that @src creates a lot of problems in practice.
Ivan Herman: This came up via Jeni and earlier with people realizing that @src creates a lot of problems in practice. ←
14:50:15 <manu1> Ivan: From a technical point of view, @src would behave exactly like @href and @resource... and not like @about.
Ivan Herman: From a technical point of view, @src would behave exactly like @href and @resource... and not like @about. ←
14:50:46 <manu1> Ivan: Doing that in terms of changing the processing steps is very easy - 5 minutes of work.
Ivan Herman: Doing that in terms of changing the processing steps is very easy - 5 minutes of work. ←
14:51:55 <manu1> Ivan: This is clearly a break in backwards compatibility - I sent around an e-mail asking if this would create a problem for people. I asked both Mark and Ben to comment, since they supported this the most strongly. All answers were that they agree with the change. The only thing that did come up show a number of tutorial that show how to use @src as @about - which is not good, but those...
Ivan Herman: This is clearly a break in backwards compatibility - I sent around an e-mail asking if this would create a problem for people. I asked both Mark and Ben to comment, since they supported this the most strongly. All answers were that they agree with the change. The only thing that did come up show a number of tutorial that show how to use @src as @about - which is not good, but those... ←
14:51:57 <manu1> ...tutorials can change.
...tutorials can change. ←
14:52:08 <manu1> Ivan: unfortunately, I don't know if the charter allows us to make this change.
Ivan Herman: unfortunately, I don't know if the charter allows us to make this change. ←
14:52:55 <manu1> Ivan: I propose that we discuss whether we agree to make this change - in case we agree, we don't implement it in the document, but we can go back to W3C Process Guardians to see if they have a major problem with this change and we'll go from there.
Ivan Herman: I propose that we discuss whether we agree to make this change - in case we agree, we don't implement it in the document, but we can go back to W3C Process Guardians to see if they have a major problem with this change and we'll go from there. ←
14:53:11 <lindstream> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
14:53:21 <manu1> ack gkellogg
ack gkellogg ←
14:53:24 <manu1> ack lindstream
ack lindstream ←
14:53:31 <manu1> Manu: Any objections to changing @src to behave like @href?
Manu Sporny: Any objections to changing @src to behave like @href? ←
14:53:39 <manu1> lindstream: I'm very supportive of this change.
Niklas Lindström: I'm very supportive of this change. ←
14:54:01 <manu1> lindstream: I'm a bit wary of some kind of hidden usage somewhere that may bite us - we should monitor the effects on the community.
Niklas Lindström: I'm a bit wary of some kind of hidden usage somewhere that may bite us - we should monitor the effects on the community. ←
14:54:13 <ivan> Charter says:
Ivan Herman: Charter says: ←
14:54:16 <ivan> Backwards compatibility with RDFa 1.0 is of great importance. That means, in general, that all triples that are produced via the October 2008 version of RDFa, should still be generated in the new version. For each new feature, if there is doubt or a perceived problem with respect to this, the guideline should be to not include the feature in the set of modifications. The only minor feature the Working Group has identified and which may constitute a possible exceptio
Ivan Herman: Backwards compatibility with RDFa 1.0 is of great importance. That means, in general, that all triples that are produced via the October 2008 version of RDFa, should still be generated in the new version. For each new feature, if there is doubt or a perceived problem with respect to this, the guideline should be to not include the feature in the set of modifications. The only minor feature the Working Group has identified and which may constitute a possible exceptio ←
14:54:17 <ivan> to this rule, is the default XML Literal generation.
Ivan Herman: to this rule, is the default XML Literal generation. ←
14:55:03 <manu1> Ivan: What worries me is the charter text - we may break the charter with this change.
Ivan Herman: What worries me is the charter text - we may break the charter with this change. ←
14:55:16 <lindstream> q+ to ask about @version
Niklas Lindström: q+ to ask about @version ←
14:56:14 <manu1> Manu: We should not allow the charter to block a good technical improvement.
Manu Sporny: We should not allow the charter to block a good technical improvement. ←
14:56:19 <manu1> ack lindstream
ack lindstream ←
14:56:19 <Zakim> lindstream, you wanted to ask about @version
Zakim IRC Bot: lindstream, you wanted to ask about @version ←
14:56:26 <lindstream> version="XHTML+RDFa 1.0"
Niklas Lindström: version="XHTML+RDFa 1.0" ←
14:56:33 <lindstream> version="XHTML+RDFa 1.1"
Niklas Lindström: version="XHTML+RDFa 1.1" ←
14:56:58 <manu1> lindstream: Could we leverage that and say that @src is interpreted as @href if the @version is not given or is version="XHTML+RDFa 1.1"
Niklas Lindström: Could we leverage that and say that @src is interpreted as @href if the @version is not given or is version="XHTML+RDFa 1.1" ←
14:57:23 <lindstream> you mean HTML*
Niklas Lindström: you mean HTML* ←
14:57:24 <lindstream> ;)
Niklas Lindström: ;) ←
14:58:05 <lindstream> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#docconf
Niklas Lindström: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#docconf ←
14:59:19 <manu1> Manu: Couldn't we do that - if you have version="XHTML+RDFa 1.0" - @src is interpreted as it always has been... if it's not specified, or if it is 1.1, then use the new processing rules for @src.
Manu Sporny: Couldn't we do that - if you have version="XHTML+RDFa 1.0" - @src is interpreted as it always has been... if it's not specified, or if it is 1.1, then use the new processing rules for @src. ←
15:00:05 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Change @src in RDFa 1.1 such that it is interpreted like @href and @resource (that is, it specifies an object).
PROPOSED: Change @src in RDFa 1.1 such that it is interpreted like @href and @resource (that is, it specifies an object). ←
15:00:07 <manu1> Manu: +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:00:10 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:00:13 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
15:00:14 <lindstream> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
15:00:31 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:00:31 <SebastianGermesin> +1
Sebastian Germesin: +1 ←
15:00:33 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:00:40 <scor> +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
15:00:42 <Steven_> +0 (was against @src as @about in the first place, but now that it's there, hesitant to change it)
Steven Pemberton: +0 (was against @src as @about in the first place, but now that it's there, hesitant to change it) ←
15:01:19 <manu1> RESOLVED: Change @src in RDFa 1.1 such that it is interpreted like @href and @resource (that is, it specifies an object).
RESOLVED: Change @src in RDFa 1.1 such that it is interpreted like @href and @resource (that is, it specifies an object). ←
15:01:55 <manu1> Ivan: I won't be here for next two meetings... schema.org meeting is next week.
Ivan Herman: I won't be here for next two meetings... schema.org meeting is next week. ←
15:02:20 <Zakim> -MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←
15:03:00 <Zakim> -scor
Zakim IRC Bot: -scor ←
15:03:04 <Zakim> -ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: -ShaneM ←
15:03:38 <Zakim> -SebastianGermesin
Zakim IRC Bot: -SebastianGermesin ←
15:03:40 <Zakim> -manu1
Zakim IRC Bot: -manu1 ←
15:03:44 <Zakim> -gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←
15:03:46 <Zakim> -lindstream
Zakim IRC Bot: -lindstream ←
15:04:06 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
15:04:08 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended ←
15:04:12 <Zakim> Attendees were SebastianGermesin, manu1, gkellogg, Ivan, MacTed, ShaneM, lindstream, tomayac, Steven, +20592aaaa, scor
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were SebastianGermesin, manu1, gkellogg, Ivan, MacTed, ShaneM, lindstream, tomayac, Steven, +20592aaaa, scor ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2011-09-15 15:16:35 UTC by 'msporny', comments: 'Minor fix-ups'