RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 29 September 2011

Agenda
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Sep/0102.html
Seen
Gregg Kellogg, Knud Möller, Manu Sporny, Niklas Lindström, Sebastian Germesin, Steven Pemberton
Guests
Niklas Lindström
Chair
Manu Sporny
Scribe
Knud Möller
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. The RDFWA WG supports the use of link & meta in the body of HTML5 documents. link
  2. Close ISSUE-101 due to a lack of concrete guidance on how the RDF WG's plain literal decision impacts RDFa 1.1 link
Topics
13:55:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/29-rdfa-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/29-rdfa-irc

13:55:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

13:55:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332

13:55:36 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:55:36 <trackbot> Date: 29 September 2011
13:55:36 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes

13:55:42 <manu1> Guest: Niklas (lindstream) Lindström
13:56:20 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Sep/0102.html
13:56:37 <manu1> Chair: Manu
14:01:15 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started

14:01:22 <Zakim> + +3539149aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +3539149aaaa

14:01:31 <Knud> zakim, I am +aaaa

Knud Möller: zakim, I am +aaaa

14:01:31 <Zakim> sorry, Knud, I do not see a party named '+aaaa'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Knud, I do not see a party named '+aaaa'

14:01:39 <Zakim> +??P34

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P34

14:01:41 <Knud> zakim, I am aaaa

Knud Möller: zakim, I am aaaa

14:01:41 <Zakim> +Knud; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Knud; got it

14:01:45 <Knud> zakim, mute me

Knud Möller: zakim, mute me

14:01:45 <Zakim> Knud should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Knud should now be muted

14:01:54 <lindstream> zakim, I am ??P34

Niklas Lindström: zakim, I am ??P34

14:01:54 <Zakim> +lindstream; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +lindstream; got it

14:02:05 <Zakim> +??P37

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P37

14:02:16 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P37

Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P37

14:02:17 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it

14:02:18 <Zakim> +??P39

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P39

14:02:21 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P39

Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P39

14:02:21 <Zakim> +manu1; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it

14:02:39 <Zakim> + +68185775aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +68185775aabb

14:02:47 <SebastianGermesin> Zakim, I am aabb

Sebastian Germesin: Zakim, I am aabb

14:02:47 <Zakim> +SebastianGermesin; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +SebastianGermesin; got it

14:03:46 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?

Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call?

14:03:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see Knud (muted), lindstream, gkellogg, manu1, SebastianGermesin

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Knud (muted), lindstream, gkellogg, manu1, SebastianGermesin

14:04:26 <manu1> Scribe: Knud

(Scribe set to Knud Möller)

14:04:44 <Knud> manu: updates to the agenda?

Manu Sporny: updates to the agenda?

14:05:03 <Zakim> +Steven

Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven

14:07:28 <Knud> … talked with Jeni Tennison in HTML data TF

… talked with Jeni Tennison in HTML data TF

14:08:00 <Knud> … we believe that RDFa 1.1 fulfils what this group wants

… we believe that RDFa 1.1 fulfils what this group wants

14:09:10 <Knud> … Is test-suite up to date?

… Is test-suite up to date?

14:09:41 <Knud> Greg: suite has been updated recently, should be pretty much up to date

Gregg Kellogg: suite has been updated recently, should be pretty much up to date

14:09:56 <Knud> … there are still RDFa 1.0 tests in there - should they remain?

… there are still RDFa 1.0 tests in there - should they remain?

14:11:22 <gkellogg> Core rdfa-test-suite updated, not my own.

Gregg Kellogg: Core rdfa-test-suite updated, not my own.

14:11:34 <Steven> q+

Steven Pemberton: q+

14:12:22 <Knud> steven: I'm on ODF technical committee. ODF 1.2 is about to become standard.

Steven Pemberton: I'm on ODF technical committee. ODF 1.2 is about to become standard.

14:12:23 <lindstream> q+

Niklas Lindström: q+

14:12:30 <manu1> ack Steven

Manu Sporny: ack Steven

14:12:33 <manu1> ack lindstream

Manu Sporny: ack lindstream

14:12:34 <Knud> … there will be a short quote about RDFa and XForms in it

… there will be a short quote about RDFa and XForms in it

14:13:07 <Knud> lindstream: did anybody look closer at rNews inclusion in schema.org?

Niklas Lindström: did anybody look closer at rNews inclusion in schema.org?

14:13:31 <Knud> manu: not in detail

Manu Sporny: not in detail

14:14:26 <Knud> lindstream: wondering if rNews will change to use MicroData instead of RDFa

Niklas Lindström: wondering if rNews will change to use MicroData instead of RDFa

14:14:47 <manu1> ACTION: Manu to ask IPTC what status of RDFa support for rNews will be in the future.

ACTION: Manu to ask IPTC what status of RDFa support for rNews will be in the future.

14:14:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-95 - Ask IPTC what status of RDFa support for rNews will be in the future. [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-10-06].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-95 - Ask IPTC what status of RDFa support for rNews will be in the future. [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-10-06].

14:14:53 <Knud> manu: I'll ask Evan and others in IPTC about that

Manu Sporny: I'll ask Evan and others in IPTC about that

14:15:08 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-108: Refine/deprecate Link relations
14:15:30 <Knud> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/108

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/108

14:16:04 <Knud> manu: someone needs to do this - any volunteers?

Manu Sporny: someone needs to do this - any volunteers?

14:16:04 <Knud> No volunteers, postpone until next time.

No volunteers, postpone until next time.

14:16:33 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-104: link/meta in HTML5 flow content
14:16:41 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/104

Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/104

14:17:04 <Knud> manu: this is not something we need to address in this WG

Manu Sporny: this is not something we need to address in this WG

14:17:41 <Knud> … some old browser versions will move link and meta statements from body to head, messing up your markup

… some old browser versions will move link and meta statements from body to head, messing up your markup

14:17:51 <Steven> q+

Steven Pemberton: q+

14:18:06 <manu1> ack Steven

Manu Sporny: ack Steven

14:18:07 <Steven> Nice to see HTML5 discovering XHTML2 features

Steven Pemberton: Nice to see HTML5 discovering XHTML2 features

14:19:06 <Knud> steven: it doesn't matter to us. Our rules will work anyway.

Steven Pemberton: it doesn't matter to us. Our rules will work anyway.

14:19:15 <gkellogg> q+

Gregg Kellogg: q+

14:19:29 <Knud> manu: but a JS implementation might not work in old browsers

Manu Sporny: but a JS implementation might not work in old browsers

14:19:33 <manu1> ack gkellogg

Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg

14:20:00 <Knud> gkellog: isn't this an issue for the HTML WG?

Gregg Kellogg: isn't this an issue for the HTML WG?

14:20:43 <Knud> manu: yes, but we should make a decision and then I can raise it in the HTML WG.

Manu Sporny: yes, but we should make a decision and then I can raise it in the HTML WG.

14:21:18 <lindstream> q+

Niklas Lindström: q+

14:22:03 <manu1> ack lindstream

Manu Sporny: ack lindstream

14:22:18 <Knud> gkellog: HTML WG needs to take a stand on this

Gregg Kellogg: HTML WG needs to take a stand on this

14:22:42 <Knud> lindstream: didn't Jeni already raise this with HTML WG? Shouldn't we just back her on this?

Niklas Lindström: didn't Jeni already raise this with HTML WG? Shouldn't we just back her on this?

14:23:44 <Knud> manu: based on our discussion here, I can raise this in HTML WG? Propose to have this in the HTML 5 spec, instead of just in the MicroData spec. I personally don't like the use of LINK and META in the body of the document.

Manu Sporny: based on our discussion here, I can raise this in HTML WG? Propose to have this in the HTML 5 spec, instead of just in the MicroData spec. I personally don't like the use of LINK and META in the body of the document.

14:23:46 <gkellogg> PROPOSAL: The RDFWA WG supports the use of link & meta in the body of HTML5 documents.

PROPOSED: The RDFWA WG supports the use of link & meta in the body of HTML5 documents.

14:24:52 <lindstream> q+

Niklas Lindström: q+

14:26:23 <lindstream> +1

Niklas Lindström: +1

14:26:24 <gkellogg> +1

Gregg Kellogg: +1

14:26:26 <SebastianGermesin> +1

Sebastian Germesin: +1

14:26:26 <Steven> +1

Steven Pemberton: +1

14:26:28 <Knud> Knud: +1

Knud Möller: +1

14:26:29 <manu1> -1 (but don't feel strongly about it)

Manu Sporny: -1 (but don't feel strongly about it)

14:26:44 <manu1> RESOLVED: The RDFWA WG supports the use of link & meta in the body of HTML5 documents.

RESOLVED: The RDFWA WG supports the use of link & meta in the body of HTML5 documents.

14:27:28 <lindstream> q+

Niklas Lindström: q+

14:27:52 <manu1> ACTION: Manu to push issue with HTML WG on LINK/META elements in body.

ACTION: Manu to push issue with HTML WG on LINK/META elements in body.

14:27:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-96 - Push issue with HTML WG on LINK/META elements in body. [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-10-06].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-96 - Push issue with HTML WG on LINK/META elements in body. [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-10-06].

14:28:13 <Knud> lindstream: we should mention somewhere that hidden data is hard to maintain, and RDFa focuses on visible data

Niklas Lindström: we should mention somewhere that hidden data is hard to maintain, and RDFa focuses on visible data

14:28:14 <gkellogg> q+

Gregg Kellogg: q+

14:28:19 <manu1> ack lindstream

Manu Sporny: ack lindstream

14:28:38 <manu1> ack gkellogg

Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg

14:29:57 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-101: RDF 1.1 and plain literals

3. ISSUE-101: RDF 1.1 and plain literals

14:30:06 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/101

Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/101

14:30:35 <lindstream> q+

Niklas Lindström: q+

14:33:41 <Knud> lindstream: we should get some more input from RDF WG on how this should be handled

Niklas Lindström: we should get some more input from RDF WG on how this should be handled

14:36:11 <lindstream> q+ :)

Niklas Lindström: q+ :)

14:36:28 <manu1> ack lindstream

Manu Sporny: ack lindstream

14:36:28 <Zakim> lindstream, you wanted to say )

Zakim IRC Bot: lindstream, you wanted to say )

14:36:49 <Knud> lindstream: we are conflating two issues: what the test suite should check for and ... what a serialization should do

Niklas Lindström: we are conflating two issues: what the test suite should check for and ... what a serialization should do

14:39:29 <gkellogg> q+

Gregg Kellogg: q+

14:40:00 <manu1> ack gkellogg

Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg

14:40:06 <Knud> … in RDFa 1.1, there is no semantic distinction between xsd:string and plain literal.

… in RDFa 1.1, there is no semantic distinction between xsd:string and plain literal.

14:40:21 <Knud> manu: but it still breaks things like SPARQL queries, we need more input from RDF WG on this. It's just not very clear what they expect specs to say based on that decision.

Manu Sporny: but it still breaks things like SPARQL queries, we need more input from RDF WG on this. It's just not very clear what they expect specs to say based on that decision.

14:42:13 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-101 due to a lack of concrete guidance on how the RDF WG's plain literal decision impacts RDFa 1.1

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-101 due to a lack of concrete guidance on how the RDF WG's plain literal decision impacts RDFa 1.1

14:42:17 <Knud> Knud: +1

Knud Möller: +1

14:42:18 <gkellogg> +1

Gregg Kellogg: +1

14:42:19 <lindstream> +1

Niklas Lindström: +1

14:42:20 <manu1> +1

Manu Sporny: +1

14:42:20 <SebastianGermesin> +1

Sebastian Germesin: +1

14:42:31 <Steven> +1

Steven Pemberton: +1

14:42:35 <manu1> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-101 due to a lack of concrete guidance on how the RDF WG's plain literal decision impacts RDFa 1.1

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-101 due to a lack of concrete guidance on how the RDF WG's plain literal decision impacts RDFa 1.1

14:42:50 <manu1> Topic: RDF API and RDFa API Work

4. RDF API and RDFa API Work

14:44:11 <lindstream> q+

Niklas Lindström: q+

14:44:18 <manu1> ack lindstream

Manu Sporny: ack lindstream

14:44:38 <Knud> manu: This is just a suggestion - but perhaps we should spin the API work out into a community group. I think the work should take more time to incubate - we're not having many people screaming for these features, and there are very few frameworks that even deal with this sort of data these days. If it were in a CG, we could incubate on it longer - let it grow naturally and then standardize once we feel that there are enough implementation experience. Any thoughts about this?

Manu Sporny: This is just a suggestion - but perhaps we should spin the API work out into a community group. I think the work should take more time to incubate - we're not having many people screaming for these features, and there are very few frameworks that even deal with this sort of data these days. If it were in a CG, we could incubate on it longer - let it grow naturally and then standardize once we feel that there are enough implementation experience. Any thoughts about this?

14:45:18 <Knud> lindstream: The RDF API is probably beyond our own WG's scope

Niklas Lindström: The RDF API is probably beyond our own WG's scope

14:45:18 <Knud> manu: It's in scope, but it would be good to get some folks from RDF WG involved - which is why we might try to move it elsewhere.

Manu Sporny: It's in scope, but it would be good to get some folks from RDF WG involved - which is why we might try to move it elsewhere.

14:45:20 <manu1> q+

Manu Sporny: q+

14:45:54 <Knud> gkellog: why did we change our name to WebApps WG, if not to deal with Web applications, which means to deal with APIs

Gregg Kellogg: why did we change our name to WebApps WG, if not to deal with Web applications, which means to deal with APIs

14:47:35 <Knud> manu: it's unlikely that any browser vendors will support the APIs any time soon

Manu Sporny: it's unlikely that any browser vendors will support the APIs any time soon

14:47:51 <Knud> … they seem to be rather hostile towards them

… they seem to be rather hostile towards them

14:48:21 <lindstream> q+

Niklas Lindström: q+

14:48:27 <manu1> ack manu1

Manu Sporny: ack manu1

14:48:32 <Knud> … there doesn't seem to be a strong demand for it in the community currently either

… there doesn't seem to be a strong demand for it in the community currently either

14:49:00 <Knud> lindstream: one of the reasons I was invited into this WG was my interest in such APIs

Niklas Lindström: one of the reasons I was invited into this WG was my interest in such APIs

14:49:20 <Knud> … but yes, maybe it could take some time to incubate

… but yes, maybe it could take some time to incubate

14:50:13 <lindstream> q+

Niklas Lindström: q+

14:50:15 <Knud> manu: this wouldn't halt the work on the APIs, instead it would give them more time.

Manu Sporny: this wouldn't halt the work on the APIs, instead it would give them more time.

14:50:47 <manu1> ack lindstream

Manu Sporny: ack lindstream

14:51:37 <Knud> lindstream: some aspects of the API are more closely related to JSON-LD

Niklas Lindström: some aspects of the API are more closely related to JSON-LD

14:52:13 <Knud> manu: yes, and this is also the way our company is dealing with this issue - conversion of RDFa to JSON-LD and then using those data structures directly. It's worked very well for us.

Manu Sporny: yes, and this is also the way our company is dealing with this issue - conversion of RDFa to JSON-LD and then using those data structures directly. It's worked very well for us.

14:53:22 <Knud> People think it's a good idea to move this out to a community group

People think it's a good idea to move this out to a community group

14:53:38 <Knud> manu: that's all from the agenda. Any other business?

Manu Sporny: that's all from the agenda. Any other business?

14:53:44 <Knud> no other business.

no other business.

14:53:44 <Zakim> -gkellogg

Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg

14:53:46 <Zakim> -Steven

Zakim IRC Bot: -Steven

14:53:46 <Zakim> -SebastianGermesin

Zakim IRC Bot: -SebastianGermesin

14:53:48 <Zakim> -manu1

Zakim IRC Bot: -manu1

14:53:52 <Zakim> -Knud

Zakim IRC Bot: -Knud

14:53:54 <Zakim> -lindstream

Zakim IRC Bot: -lindstream

14:53:54 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended

14:53:56 <Zakim> Attendees were +3539149aaaa, Knud, lindstream, gkellogg, manu1, +68185775aabb, SebastianGermesin, Steven

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +3539149aaaa, Knud, lindstream, gkellogg, manu1, +68185775aabb, SebastianGermesin, Steven



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#3) generated 2011-10-06 15:06:59 UTC by 'msporny', comments: 'Minor fixes'