14:58:22 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/12/15-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/12/15-rdfa-irc ←
14:58:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:58:26 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
14:58:26 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes ←
14:58:27 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
14:58:27 <trackbot> Date: 15 December 2011
14:58:47 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started ←
14:58:54 <Zakim> +??P15
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15 ←
14:58:57 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P15
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P15 ←
14:58:57 <manu1> Guest: Dan (danbri) Brickley
14:58:57 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
14:59:47 <Zakim> +??P18
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P18 ←
14:59:53 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P18
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P18 ←
14:59:53 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
15:00:46 <Zakim> +??P24
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P24 ←
15:00:52 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P24
Niklas Lindström: zakim, I am ??P24 ←
15:00:52 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +niklasl; got it ←
15:01:50 <Zakim> +scor
Zakim IRC Bot: +scor ←
15:06:08 <Zakim> +??P43
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P43 ←
15:06:16 <ShaneM> zakim, ??P43 is ShaneM
Shane McCarron: zakim, ??P43 is ShaneM ←
15:06:17 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM; got it ←
15:07:34 <manu1> scribenick: niklasl
(Scribe set to Niklas Lindström)
15:07:44 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Dec/0052.html
15:08:16 <niklasl> q+
q+ ←
15:08:55 <niklasl> https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/119
https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/119 ←
15:09:56 <niklasl> niklasl: we're waiting for feedback on ISSUE 119 (feedback on RDFa 1.1 Lite)
Niklas Lindström: we're waiting for feedback on ISSUE-119 (feedback on RDFa 1.1 Lite) ←
15:10:31 <niklasl> manu: technically we don't need to wait for it since it's not part of what's on track for last call
Manu Sporny: technically we don't need to wait for it since it's not part of what's on track for last call ←
15:10:35 <manu1> niklas: Are these the only remaining issues for LC? What about ISSUE-119?
Niklas Lindström: Are these the only remaining issues for LC? What about ISSUE-119? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:10:47 <manu1> manu: ISSUE-119 is not a blocker for LC for RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1
Manu Sporny: ISSUE-119 is not a blocker for LC for RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:11:17 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-123: HTMLLiterals
15:12:07 <manu1> https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/123
Manu Sporny: https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/123 ←
15:12:15 <niklasl> gregg: issue is about problems with XHTML canonicalization and that HTML "tag soup" aren't really appropriate for that
Gregg Kellogg: issue is about problems with XHTML canonicalization and that HTML "tag soup" aren't really appropriate for that ←
15:12:33 <niklasl> gregg: also, the RDF WG are looking into the value/need of a new HTMLLiteral
Gregg Kellogg: also, the RDF WG are looking into the value/need of a new HTMLLiteral ←
15:12:52 <niklasl> gregg: implementable by an innerHTML parser
Gregg Kellogg: implementable by an innerHTML parser ←
15:13:19 <niklasl> gregg: an HTMLLiteral would be a better match for HTML+RDFa
Gregg Kellogg: an HTMLLiteral would be a better match for HTML+RDFa ←
15:13:37 <niklasl> gregg: but we probably need to wait for the RDF WG resolution
Gregg Kellogg: but we probably need to wait for the RDF WG resolution ←
15:14:04 <niklasl> gregg: also, there is the LC issue...
Gregg Kellogg: also, there is the LC issue... ←
15:14:29 <niklasl> manu: we could put this into the HTML+RDFa spec in a couple of months depending on the outcome from the RDF WG
Manu Sporny: we could put this into the HTML+RDFa spec in a couple of months depending on the outcome from the RDF WG ←
15:14:44 <niklasl> manu: any objections?
Manu Sporny: any objections? ←
15:15:36 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Ensure that language in XHTML+RDFa 1.1 does not prevent the implementation of an HTMLLiteral datatype in the future. Ensure that HTML+RDFa 1.1 is not prevented from implementing an HTMLLiteral datatype.
PROPOSED: Ensure that language in XHTML+RDFa 1.1 does not prevent the implementation of an HTMLLiteral datatype in the future. Ensure that HTML+RDFa 1.1 is not prevented from implementing an HTMLLiteral datatype. ←
15:15:53 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:15:54 <niklasl> niklas: +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
15:15:57 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:16:11 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
15:16:12 <scor> +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
15:16:14 <manu1> RESOLVED: Ensure that language in XHTML+RDFa 1.1 does not prevent the implementation of an HTMLLiteral datatype in the future. Ensure that HTML+RDFa 1.1 is not prevented from implementing an HTMLLiteral datatype.
RESOLVED: Ensure that language in XHTML+RDFa 1.1 does not prevent the implementation of an HTMLLiteral datatype in the future. Ensure that HTML+RDFa 1.1 is not prevented from implementing an HTMLLiteral datatype. ←
15:16:38 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-124: RDFa Lite Document Conformance
15:16:44 <manu1> https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/124
Manu Sporny: https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/124 ←
15:17:11 <niklasl> manu: there is a weird issue coming from RDFa Lite building on top of HTML+RDFa
Manu Sporny: there is a weird issue coming from RDFa Lite building on top of HTML+RDFa ←
15:17:53 <niklasl> manu: there's been a suggestion that RDFa Lite should be lower in the stack of specs (on top of RDFa 1.1 Core)
Manu Sporny: there's been a suggestion that RDFa Lite should be lower in the stack of specs (on top of RDFa 1.1 Core) ←
15:18:39 <niklasl> manu: the document conformance for RDFa 1.1. Lite is exactly the same as for RDFa 1.1 Core
Manu Sporny: the document conformance for RDFa 1.1. Lite is exactly the same as for RDFa 1.1 Core ←
15:19:06 <niklasl> manu: make HTML+RDFa to depend on both Lite and Core
Manu Sporny: make HTML+RDFa to depend on both Lite and Core ←
15:19:22 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
15:19:28 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:19:33 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss last call sequence
Shane McCarron: q+ to discuss last call sequence ←
15:19:37 <niklasl> manu: the benefits would be to be able to take RDFa Lite to LC (before HTML+RDFa)
Manu Sporny: the benefits would be to be able to take RDFa Lite to LC (before HTML+RDFa) ←
15:20:16 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
15:20:20 <niklasl> gregg: the risk is that people might restrict to implementing only Lite…
Gregg Kellogg: the risk is that people might restrict to implementing only Lite… ←
15:20:23 <manu1> ack shanem
Manu Sporny: ack shanem ←
15:20:23 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss last call sequence
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to discuss last call sequence ←
15:20:31 <niklasl> shane: I'm worried about timing
Shane McCarron: I'm worried about timing ←
15:21:13 <gkellogg> HTML+Lite+RDFa?
Gregg Kellogg: HTML+Lite+RDFa? ←
15:21:47 <niklasl> shane: is somebody upset about there not being a specific Lite document conformance?
Shane McCarron: is somebody upset about there not being a specific Lite document conformance? ←
15:21:52 <niklasl> manu: we don't know yet
Manu Sporny: we don't know yet ←
15:22:28 <niklasl> manu: with this change (X)HTML+RFa would depend on RDFa Lite and not (as now) the other way around
Manu Sporny: with this change (X)HTML+RFa would depend on RDFa Lite and not (as now) the other way around ←
15:22:49 <niklasl> shane: neither makes any sense; RDFa Lite is just a "profile"
Shane McCarron: neither makes any sense; RDFa Lite is just a "profile" ←
15:22:56 <niklasl> q+
q+ ←
15:23:42 <niklasl> manu: what normative statement should we put in Lite to make it clear that it has now own document conformance
Manu Sporny: what normative statement should we put in Lite to make it clear that it has now own document conformance ←
15:23:50 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:24:18 <manu1> niklas: I was wondering if a normative statement could be made like so: RDFa Lite is a usage pattern and not speak about conformance levels and technical details...
Niklas Lindström: I was wondering if a normative statement could be made like so: RDFa Lite is a usage pattern and not speak about conformance levels and technical details... [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:24:50 <gkellogg> q+ to ask what processing rules would be different for RDFa 1.1 Lite?
Gregg Kellogg: q+ to ask what processing rules would be different for RDFa 1.1 Lite? ←
15:24:55 <niklasl> manu: the closest we've come to that is what Shane just said. We need to get a clear idea of what e.g. google wants
Manu Sporny: the closest we've come to that is what Shane just said. We need to get a clear idea of what e.g. google wants ←
15:25:06 <niklasl> manu: I don't think we should have a normative statement there.
Manu Sporny: I don't think we should have a normative statement there. ←
15:25:09 <scor> isn't a primer non-normative?
Stéphane Corlosquet: isn't a primer non-normative? ←
15:25:21 <niklasl> manu: but can a doc without a normative stmt go to Rec track?
Manu Sporny: but can a doc without a normative stmt go to Rec track? ←
15:25:46 <niklasl> shane: how knows? It's semantically "null"…
Shane McCarron: how knows? It's semantically "null"… ←
15:25:54 <scor> so, we could consider RDFa Lite like another primer...
Stéphane Corlosquet: so, we could consider RDFa Lite like another primer... ←
15:26:09 <gkellogg> q-
Gregg Kellogg: q- ←
15:26:12 <niklasl> manu: RDFa Lite should probably be a note…
Manu Sporny: RDFa Lite should probably be a note… ←
15:26:36 <niklasl> q+
q+ ←
15:27:46 <niklasl> manu: would we want to say that an RDFa Lite document must only use RDFa Lite attributes – but an RDFa (lite) processor must process any RDFa (attributes + features)
Manu Sporny: would we want to say that an RDFa Lite document must only use RDFa Lite attributes – but an RDFa (lite) processor must process any RDFa (attributes + features) ←
15:28:14 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:28:41 <manu1> niklas: RDFa Lite is somewhat similar to code conventions
Niklas Lindström: RDFa Lite is somewhat similar to code conventions [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:28:55 <ShaneM> q+ to say that document conformance could just say 'host langage and only those RDFa attributes mentioned in this spec'
Shane McCarron: q+ to say that document conformance could just say 'host langage and only those RDFa attributes mentioned in this spec' ←
15:29:02 <gkellogg> or features of JavaScript to avoid using
Gregg Kellogg: or features of JavaScript to avoid using ←
15:29:19 <manu1> ack shanem
Manu Sporny: ack shanem ←
15:29:19 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to say that document conformance could just say 'host langage and only those RDFa attributes mentioned in this spec'
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to say that document conformance could just say 'host langage and only those RDFa attributes mentioned in this spec' ←
15:29:25 <manu1> q+ to discuss the approach
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss the approach ←
15:29:29 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
15:29:59 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
15:29:59 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss the approach
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to discuss the approach ←
15:30:22 <niklasl> shane: conform ant document only use the Lite subset; they are interpreted the RDFa core processing rules
Shane McCarron: conform ant document only use the Lite subset; they are interpreted the RDFa core processing rules ←
15:31:18 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
15:31:43 <niklasl> gregg: what is it about RDFa 1.1 lite that allows this group to publish it, but not publish HTML+RDFa 1.1
Gregg Kellogg: what is it about RDFa 1.1 lite that allows this group to publish it, but not publish HTML+RDFa 1.1 ←
15:32:11 <ShaneM> RDFa 1.1 Lite does NOT define a host language. So it really has no dependency upon HTML+RDFa nor XHTML+RDFa
Shane McCarron: RDFa 1.1 Lite does NOT define a host language. So it really has no dependency upon HTML+RDFa nor XHTML+RDFa ←
15:32:29 <niklasl> manu: this group is chartered to update XHTML+RDFa, by publishing any number of documents
Manu Sporny: this group is chartered to update XHTML+RDFa, by publishing any number of documents ←
15:33:27 <niklasl> manu: but the HTML WG is in control of documents related to that. RDFa Lite is not bound to HTML, so that's ok.
Manu Sporny: but the HTML WG is in control of documents related to that. RDFa Lite is not bound to HTML, so that's ok. ←
15:35:28 <Zakim> -scor
Zakim IRC Bot: -scor ←
15:35:58 <manu1> PROPOSAL: RDFa Lite 1.1 will make normative statements about Document Conformance, but stay silent on RDFa Processor conformance. HTML+RDFa 1.1 will depend on RDFa Core 1.1 and RDFa Lite 1.1 and will make normative statements both on Document Conformance and RDFa Processor conformance.
PROPOSED: RDFa Lite 1.1 will make normative statements about Document Conformance, but stay silent on RDFa Processor conformance. HTML+RDFa 1.1 will depend on RDFa Core 1.1 and RDFa Lite 1.1 and will make normative statements both on Document Conformance and RDFa Processor conformance. ←
15:36:06 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:36:09 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:36:11 <niklasl> niklas: +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
15:36:13 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
15:36:26 <scor> +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
15:36:29 <manu1> RESOLVED: RDFa Lite 1.1 will make normative statements about Document Conformance, but stay silent on RDFa Processor conformance. HTML+RDFa 1.1 will depend on RDFa Core 1.1 and RDFa Lite 1.1 and will make normative statements both on Document Conformance and RDFa Processor conformance.
RESOLVED: RDFa Lite 1.1 will make normative statements about Document Conformance, but stay silent on RDFa Processor conformance. HTML+RDFa 1.1 will depend on RDFa Core 1.1 and RDFa Lite 1.1 and will make normative statements both on Document Conformance and RDFa Processor conformance. ←
15:37:28 <Zakim> +scor
Zakim IRC Bot: +scor ←
15:37:41 <niklasl> manu: HTML+RDFa 1.1 will use RDFa Lite to speak of document conformance: the full core and the lite subset; processing rules are the same as Core + XHTML (process all attributes plus host language requirements)
Manu Sporny: HTML+RDFa 1.1 will use RDFa Lite to speak of document conformance: the full core and the lite subset; processing rules are the same as Core + XHTML (process all attributes plus host language requirements) ←
15:37:58 <niklasl> shane: you could have the same effect without referencing Lite
Shane McCarron: you could have the same effect without referencing Lite ←
15:38:42 <niklasl> manu: how can someone say that their HTML+RDF documents are conformant to Lite?
Manu Sporny: how can someone say that their HTML+RDF documents are conformant to Lite? ←
15:38:56 <niklasl> shane: by saying it conforms to RDFa Lite
Shane McCarron: by saying it conforms to RDFa Lite ←
15:39:55 <niklasl> q+
q+ ←
15:40:11 <manu1> ACTION: Manu and Shane to work on RDFa Lite Document Conformance language.
ACTION: Manu and Shane to work on RDFa Lite Document Conformance language. ←
15:40:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-105 - And Shane to work on RDFa Lite Document Conformance language. [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-12-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-105 - And Shane to work on RDFa Lite Document Conformance language. [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-12-22]. ←
15:40:14 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:40:52 <manu1> niklas: There are some things that strike a similar perspective in the HTML5 spec - HTML5 includes every old element like <font>, but discourages their use.
Niklas Lindström: There are some things that strike a similar perspective in the HTML5 spec - HTML5 includes every old element like <font>, but discourages their use. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:41:14 <manu1> niklas: self-closing elements, even though it isn't an XHTML5 document. Perhaps there is something in the wording that we could borrow from the HTML5 spec.
Niklas Lindström: self-closing elements, even though it isn't an XHTML5 document. Perhaps there is something in the wording that we could borrow from the HTML5 spec. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:41:50 <niklasl> manu: good point. We need to find the language for this.
Manu Sporny: good point. We need to find the language for this. ←
15:41:54 <manu1> Topic: Any other issues?
15:42:06 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
15:42:17 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
15:43:02 <niklasl> gregg: danbri had a comment earlier today about the sense of the group's position on how we stand regarding @resource/@about and Lite
Gregg Kellogg: danbri had a comment earlier today about the sense of the group's position on how we stand regarding @resource/@about and Lite ←
15:43:05 <manu1> q+
Manu Sporny: q+ ←
15:43:09 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
15:44:00 <niklasl> manu: considering the arguments, I'm fairly opposed to the change. It might convey an instability in the spec. It's about the teaching reasons.
Manu Sporny: considering the arguments, I'm fairly opposed to the change. It might convey an instability in the spec. It's about the teaching reasons. ←
15:44:22 <niklasl> manu: the name @resource isn't as good as @about – we've been teaching @about.
Manu Sporny: the name @resource isn't as good as @about – we've been teaching @about. ←
15:45:01 <niklasl> manu: technically I can understand why @resource might be a bit better; but that could be lost to people learning it
Manu Sporny: technically I can understand why @resource might be a bit better; but that could be lost to people learning it ←
15:45:37 <niklasl> gregg: we should consider two things: 1 adding @resource to Lite
Gregg Kellogg: we should consider two things: 1 adding @resource to Lite ←
15:45:50 <niklasl> gregg: 2: should we remove @about
Gregg Kellogg: 2: should we remove @about ←
15:46:21 <niklasl> manu: I'm opposed to both: adding @resource complicates Lite; removing @about sends a message that it's not as stable as we've said it is
Manu Sporny: I'm opposed to both: adding @resource complicates Lite; removing @about sends a message that it's not as stable as we've said it is ←
15:47:21 <niklasl> gregg: if the sense of the group is that we don't want to do this, we should pull back the question on feedback
Gregg Kellogg: if the sense of the group is that we don't want to do this, we should pull back the question on feedback ←
15:47:23 <niklasl> q+
q+ ←
15:47:29 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:48:06 <manu1> niklas: It's a tricky thing, understand your position (Manu), impression of instability is illusory to me.
Niklas Lindström: It's a tricky thing, understand your position (Manu), impression of instability is illusory to me. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:48:48 <manu1> niklas: There might be that impression, but there shouldn't be that instability. There are two different perspectives on how to use features of RDFa - neither is going away. Thinking of promoting @resource gives it a simpler shape.
Niklas Lindström: There might be that impression, but there shouldn't be that instability. There are two different perspectives on how to use features of RDFa - neither is going away. Thinking of promoting @resource gives it a simpler shape. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:49:34 <niklasl> manu: technically, in a vacuum, it might be simpler; but switching the mindset is much harder; and @about has more meaning
Manu Sporny: technically, in a vacuum, it might be simpler; but switching the mindset is much harder; and @about has more meaning ←
15:49:35 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
15:49:52 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
15:50:45 <niklasl> gregg: I'm not sure about the confusion; the audience of Lite is people who don't know RDFa or who've perceived full RDFa as too complex anyway
Gregg Kellogg: I'm not sure about the confusion; the audience of Lite is people who don't know RDFa or who've perceived full RDFa as too complex anyway ←
15:51:21 <niklasl> manu: people will see the schema.org examples and copy them
Manu Sporny: people will see the schema.org examples and copy them ←
15:51:46 <niklasl> manu: then when doing more complex stuff, they'll see a whole bunch of RDFa using @about
Manu Sporny: then when doing more complex stuff, they'll see a whole bunch of RDFa using @about ←
15:52:02 <niklasl> manu: we're not teaching a single best practise
Manu Sporny: we're not teaching a single best practise ←
15:52:46 <niklasl> manu: how do I convey why using @resource is better than @about in general
Manu Sporny: how do I convey why using @resource is better than @about in general ←
15:53:13 <niklasl> manu: telling people that there are two very different ways of using RDFa
Manu Sporny: telling people that there are two very different ways of using RDFa ←
15:53:16 <niklasl> q+
q+ ←
15:53:30 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:54:32 <manu1> niklas: Yes, important point - alluded to this proposal as not limited to RDFa Lite... most pressing part, subset of RDFa - main question: Do people think that we should re-imagine the best practice of RDFa to use @resource vs. @about?
Niklas Lindström: Yes, important point - alluded to this proposal as not limited to RDFa Lite... most pressing part, subset of RDFa - main question: Do people think that we should re-imagine the best practice of RDFa to use @resource vs. @about? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:55:08 <manu1> niklas: If we were to do this, we could avoid these issues, we should make the same conceptual change in RDFa Core 1.1.
Niklas Lindström: If we were to do this, we could avoid these issues, we should make the same conceptual change in RDFa Core 1.1. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:55:49 <niklasl> manu: I agree that if we do the change we should do it all the way; but we've been teaching @about for 4 years.
Manu Sporny: I agree that if we do the change we should do it all the way; but we've been teaching @about for 4 years. ←
15:56:25 <niklasl> manu: we don't know if people will prefer and understand this better
Manu Sporny: we don't know if people will prefer and understand this better ←
15:57:10 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
15:57:12 <niklasl> manu: what happens if @resource does *not* click with people is worse than the upsides of if it clicks.
Manu Sporny: what happens if @resource does *not* click with people is worse than the upsides of if it clicks. ←
15:57:17 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
15:57:22 <niklasl> gregg: good point.
Gregg Kellogg: good point. ←
15:57:37 <niklasl> gregg: the real issue is what schema.org will use in their markup.
Gregg Kellogg: the real issue is what schema.org will use in their markup. ←
15:57:46 <niklasl> q+
q+ ←
15:58:11 <manu1> q+ to discuss what schema.org might want.
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss what schema.org might want. ←
15:58:14 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:58:18 <niklasl> gregg: without feedback we should remove this issue
Gregg Kellogg: without feedback we should remove this issue ←
15:58:33 <manu1> niklas: I agree re: schema.org - what are they going to want to use?
Niklas Lindström: I agree re: schema.org - what are they going to want to use? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:00:01 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
16:00:03 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss what schema.org might want.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to discuss what schema.org might want. ←
16:00:05 <niklasl> manu: that might be good to add to the Primer.
Manu Sporny: that might be good to add to the Primer. ←
16:00:17 <niklasl> manu: I don't think they're gonna use @resource.
Manu Sporny: I don't think they're gonna use @resource. ←
16:00:18 <danbri> (I guess someone needs to sit down and slog through converting all the microdata examples to Lite, and see how that reflects on this issue? or maybe it was done...?)
Dan Brickley: (I guess someone needs to sit down and slog through converting all the microdata examples to Lite, and see how that reflects on this issue? or maybe it was done...?) ←
16:00:31 <niklasl> q+
q+ ←
16:02:10 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
16:02:20 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
16:05:00 <Zakim> -gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←
16:05:24 <scor> q+
Stéphane Corlosquet: q+ ←
16:05:25 <niklasl> manu: I would support adding it in the primer. We've hadn't had time to test the idea. It's premature to promote this new way.
Manu Sporny: I would support adding it in the primer. We've hadn't had time to test the idea. It's premature to promote this new way. ←
16:05:37 <manu1> ack scor
Manu Sporny: ack scor ←
16:06:04 <niklasl> scor: what's happened on the initiative on scraping the web for usage patterns?
Stéphane Corlosquet: what's happened on the initiative on scraping the web for usage patterns? ←
16:06:19 <niklasl> q+
q+ ←
16:06:33 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
16:06:52 <niklasl> manu: we're waiting on commoncrawl to give us some hello-world examples
Manu Sporny: we're waiting on commoncrawl to give us some hello-world examples ←
16:09:15 <niklasl> (maybe I can use clojure then. I've already done some RDFa-processing with that: https://github.com/niklasl/clj-rdfa/blob/master/src/rdfa/core.clj) :)
(maybe I can use clojure then. I've already done some RDFa-processing with that: https://github.com/niklasl/clj-rdfa/blob/master/src/rdfa/core.clj) :) ←
16:10:13 <niklasl> manu: no telecon next week.
Manu Sporny: no telecon next week. ←
16:10:38 <Zakim> -ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: -ShaneM ←
16:10:40 <Zakim> -scor
Zakim IRC Bot: -scor ←
16:10:42 <Zakim> -manu1
Zakim IRC Bot: -manu1 ←
16:10:47 <Zakim> -niklasl
Zakim IRC Bot: -niklasl ←
16:10:47 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended ←
16:10:49 <Zakim> Attendees were manu1, gkellogg, niklasl, scor, ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were manu1, gkellogg, niklasl, scor, ShaneM ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2011-12-15 16:20:42 UTC by 'msporny', comments: 'Fixed up minutes.'