Chatlog 2010-03-18

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

See CommonScribe Control Panel, original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

12:20:47 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
12:20:47 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/03/18-rdfa-irc
12:20:53 <manu> trackbot, setup telecon
12:20:53 <trackbot> Sorry, manu, I don't understand 'trackbot, setup telecon'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
12:21:58 <manu> trackbot, status
12:22:08 <manu> manu has left #rdfa
12:22:15 <manu> manu has joined #rdfa
12:23:40 <manu> trackbot, prepare telecon
12:23:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
12:23:45 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
12:23:45 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
12:23:46 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
12:23:46 <trackbot> Date: 18 March 2010
12:58:02 <ivan> ivan has joined #rdfa
13:16:36 <ivan> ivan has joined #rdfa
13:21:04 <manu> zakim, this will be rdfa
13:21:04 <Zakim> ok, manu; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 39 minutes
13:49:54 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
13:57:19 <jeffs> jeffs has joined #rdfa
13:59:42 <RobW> RobW has joined #rdfa
14:00:55 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:01:02 <Zakim> + +1.978.692.aaaa
14:01:27 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:01:32 <manu> zakim, I am IPcaller
14:01:32 <Zakim> ok, manu, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
14:02:39 <Zakim> +McCarron
14:03:22 <Steven> Steven has joined #rdfa
14:03:24 <Zakim> + +0208761aabb
14:03:48 <Zakim> + +1.585.278.aacc
14:04:07 <jeffs> zakim, aacc is jeffs
14:04:07 <Zakim> +jeffs; got it
14:05:39 <manu> scribenick: msporny
14:05:56 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
14:05:56 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
14:05:58 <Zakim> +Steven
14:06:28 <Steven> zakim, mute me
14:06:28 <Zakim> Steven should now be muted
14:07:05 <Steven> zakim, who is here?
14:07:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.978.692.aaaa, [IPcaller], McCarron, +0208761aabb, jeffs, Steven (muted)
14:07:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see Steven, RobW, jeffs, ShaneM, ivan, manu, RRSAgent, Zakim, trackbot
14:07:13 <markbirbeck> markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
14:07:42 <RobW> zakim, I am +1.978.692.aaaa
14:07:42 <Zakim> +RobW; got it
14:05:40 <manu> Present: Jeffrey Sonstein, Manu Sporny, Mark Birbeck, Robert Weir, Shane McCarron, Steven
14:05:41 <manu> Chair: Manu Sporny
14:05:42 <manu> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Mar/0122.html
14:07:44 <manu> Manu: Let's skip action items, to get as much technical work done today as possible.
14:07:56 <manu> Topic: Merging prefix/token concept to "list of mappings"
14:08:17 <manu> Manu: Mark, can you give a quick overview of this?
14:08:24 <manu>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Mar/0105.html
14:08:57 <manu> Mark: The idea is that you can already use a prefix just like you would a token. You could already create tokens for "creator" "knows" "name", whatever using the current syntax.
14:09:26 <manu> Mark: There's nothing to stop you from doing: xmlns:knows="http.../knows" and then rel="knows:"
14:09:52 <manu> Mark: It's kind of annoying that we can't just do rel="knows" - it seems like a natural move.
14:10:22 <manu> Manu: Anybody object to doing this?
14:11:48 <manu> Mark: There is an interesting discussion about who our audience is - is it the people that are using RDFa 1.0 happily, or is it the beginner web authors? I think it's the latter.
14:12:16 <manu> Manu: I do too, I think that this is a natural step for us to take - people wouldn't need to understand two concepts... just one - mappings.
14:12:52 <manu> Mark: Right, so who is the next phase of our work directed at? We need to make it as easy as possible for web authors.
14:13:27 <manu> Mark: I think they're not objecting to the idea, just whether or not we should talk about them in the same breath.
14:13:30 <jeffs> +1 to keeping tight focus on authors/developers as primary 
14:14:19 <jeffs> IMHO better to get them on here to talk to whole group
14:14:36 <jeffs> would help clarify for us all
14:15:58 <manu> Manu: maybe we should talk with Ben at a different time, speed the process up since he can only communicate via e-mail.
14:17:08 <manu> Mark: We definitely want to make progress and the calls aren't getting us moving fast enough, so let's try to schedule another call with Ben and Ivan.
14:17:17 <manu> Topic: RDF vs. key/value for expanding the "list of mappings"
14:18:05 <manu> Mark: There are three routes.
14:18:27 <manu> Mark: One is do RDF only, the other is do key/value only, the third is do key/value first - and then build on top of that using RDF.
14:18:39 <manu> Mark: The discussion to this point is good.
14:19:08 <manu> Mark: If we use the current mechanism, we end up with a ton of xmlns: definitions at the top.
14:19:23 <manu> Mark: There are tons of namespaces declared at the top - we have to realize that the problem is this.
14:19:36 <manu> Mark: We need to figure out a different way to define this in an external document.
14:19:52 <manu> Mark: It's just like the <script> tag - it's either in the current document, or an external document.
14:20:06 <manu> Mark: So after we understand that that's the problem we're addressing...
14:20:21 <jeffs> danger will robinson, danger. IMHO having a separate doc of what is essentially vocab metadata is A Bad Idea
14:20:41 <manu> Mark: So the next step is how to do the token mappings?
14:21:18 <manu> Mark: There are lots of peripheral discussions - what happens when the documents don't exist, what happens if an RDFa 1.0 parser parses an RDFa 1.1 document, etc.
14:23:27 <manu> Mark: Keeping token declaration and vocabularies apart may be good for the simpler solution.
14:23:44 <manu> Manu: So, what does the vocabulary look like? That could take months to discuss.
14:23:48 <manu> q+
14:23:57 <manu> ack me
14:24:12 <jeffs> q+ jeffs
14:25:31 <manu> Manu: I don't understand why the vocabulary would take so long to specify?
14:25:38 <Steven> I note that the vocabulary document already uses RDFa to define vocabulary
14:25:50 <Steven> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab
14:25:56 <manu> ack jeffs
14:26:22 <Steven> q+
14:26:44 <Steven> ack me
14:26:48 <manu> Jeff: When we start talking about an external document so that the processor can do it's job, that starts making me very nervous. I think xmlns: works well.
14:27:04 <jeffs> q-
14:27:06 <manu> Steven: I do like just using xmlns: - our current vocab document is already defined in RDFa.
14:27:10 <manu> Shane: That's true.
14:27:53 <manu> Manu: Are you saying that we should use that same mechanism?
14:28:14 <manu> q+
14:28:26 <jeffs> +1 for simplicity of xmlns in doc for sake of authors as well
14:28:47 <markbirbeck> q+
14:29:10 <Steven> zakim, [IP is manu
14:29:10 <Zakim> +manu; got it
14:29:18 <Steven> q?
14:29:19 <markbirbeck> q+ To say that the current vocab document doesn't define tokens.
14:31:01 <Steven> q+ to say Oh yes it does
14:31:11 <jeffs> could we invite a Google person to attend a teleconf & talk w us about this issue?
14:31:16 <manu> Steven: I do like the simplicity of just using xmlns:, but we have also described something in RDFa before.
14:31:24 <Steven> ack mark
14:31:24 <Zakim> markbirbeck, you wanted to say that the current vocab document doesn't define tokens.
14:31:36 <Steven> ack [
14:32:17 <Steven> ack me
14:32:17 <Zakim> Steven, you wanted to say Oh yes it does
14:32:38 <ShaneM> Token definition:   <dt id="bookmark" about="#bookmark" typeof="rdf:Property">bookmark</dt>     <dd about="#bookmark" property="rdfs:comment" datatype="xsd:string"><span>bookmark</span> refers to a bookmark - a link       to a key entry point within an extended document. </dd> 
14:32:46 <manu> Manu: I don't think just keeping xmlns: and not having a different mechanism is helpful to beginner web authors.
14:33:05 <manu> Mark: The XHTML vocab document tokens are not defined in RDFa.
14:33:29 <manu> Shane: I disagree
14:33:31 <manu> Steven: me too
14:33:54 <manu> Steven: The relationships that are generated are fairly convincing.
14:34:26 <manu> Mark: Which triple tells you that?
14:34:38 <manu> Steven: The one that says it's a member of rel/rev properties?
14:35:04 <manu> Mark: All the members are the @about values - which are URIs
14:35:24 <ShaneM> triples for appendix in the vocab:
14:35:25 <ShaneM> <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#appendix> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#member> <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#relrev-properties> . <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#appendix> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property> . <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#appendix> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#member> <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#relrev-properties> . <http://www.w3.org
14:35:27 <manu> Steven: You have a #appendix value - we're saying that this is a rel/rev property and therefore we could say that you take the hash bit off and that's your token.
14:36:08 <ShaneM> I agree with Mark - we didn't make it crystal clear.  We could have, but we didn't.
14:36:35 <manu> Mark: You couldn't follow your nose to it.
14:37:09 <markbirbeck> http://backplanejs.appspot.com/rdfa?url=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/
14:37:10 <manu> Manu: Right, but you could just add one keyword and make that happen, right?
14:37:25 <manu> q+
14:37:54 <manu> Mark: Yes, that is one proposal, one way of going at it.
14:39:39 <manu> Mark: I'm saying we need both - @token, and an RDF vocabulary
14:39:57 <manu> ack manu
14:42:32 <manu> Manu: Would you be okay with @token if it didn't cause keywords to be pulled into other documents via @profile?
14:43:09 <manu> Mark: No - I think this mechanism should be used to define tokens that get imported via @profile.
14:43:16 <manu> q+
14:43:40 <manu> ack manu
14:44:02 <jeffs> I often talk to my classes about the benefits of defining things so there is more than 1 way to accomplish the same things (ppl think about things differently), *and* the dangers of subtle differences creeping in
14:44:46 <manu> Manu: What about the issue of @token being processed differently from how all other RDFa attributes are processed - with context. We're saying that @token doesn't have context in @profile documents, but it does have context in author documents, right?
14:44:47 <manu> Manu: <html>...<body>...<div><div><div><div token="foaf: http://xmlns...foaf/">...
14:44:55 <manu> Manu: That's in the profile document.
14:46:01 <manu> Manu: So, if that's used in the author's document via @profile, would foaf: be defined?
14:47:19 <manu> Manu: If so, then there is a mismatch for how we process that attribute - the context isn't the same in the @profile document and the current authors document.
14:47:47 <ShaneM> What happens if an external document also references another profile?
14:48:38 <manu> Mark: Yes, there is different context for when @token is imported by @profile - and when it's used in the authors document. In the profile document, it is global scope, in the author document it's element scope
14:48:50 <manu> Mark: but we need to create something simple - go back to basics...
14:48:54 <jeffs> manu: I must admit to being confused on how your div example is better than <f:div xmlns:f="http://xmlns...foaf/">...  ???
14:49:31 <manu> q+
14:50:10 <manu> Shane: What tokens/prefixes get included in the collection that's being pulled into the parent document?
14:50:29 <manu> Shane: How deep do we go with the @profile imports? What happens when @profiles import other @profiles?
14:51:05 <manu> Mark: We could say @xmlns: doesn't get imported... and @token does.
14:51:41 <manu> Mark: If you want to be indexed by Google, you use the Google profile.
14:52:09 <manu> q+
14:54:10 <markbirbeck> q+
14:55:01 <manu> ack manu
14:55:04 <manu> ack markbirbeck
14:56:08 <manu> Manu: It seems to me that the RDFa Vocabulary solution doesn't make us create solutions that have all of these technical difficulties like context and which keywords can be pulled forward into profile documents and author documents.
14:56:10 <manu> q+
14:56:53 <manu> Manu: for example, solving the context problem with @token seems like it has somewhat hack-ish solutions.
14:59:39 <jeffs> seems like we need to continue to talk this through in the next mtg
15:00:00 <ShaneM> I'm not really clear whether the external document defines terms, prefixes, or both?
15:01:22 <jeffs> IMHO we have actually made very good progress today, clarification furthers
15:01:32 <markbirbeck> +1 jeffs :)
15:01:43 <Zakim> -McCarron
15:01:45 <Zakim> - +0208761aabb
15:01:46 <Zakim> -RobW
15:01:54 <Zakim> -jeffs
15:01:59 <Steven> Regrets for me next week
15:02:04 <Zakim> -Steven
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000162