Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2010-06-03
From RDFa Working Group Wiki
See CommonScribe Control Panel, original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.
13:52:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 13:52:51 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-rdfa-irc 13:52:58 <manu_> trackbot, prepare telecon 13:53:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 13:53:02 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332 13:53:02 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes 13:53:03 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference 13:53:03 <trackbot> Date: 03 June 2010 13:53:09 <manu_> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jun/0007.html 13:53:13 <manu_> Chair: Manu 13:53:22 <manu_> Present: Steven, Ivan, Benjamin, Manu, markb, shane, toby 13:53:24 <manu_> Regrets: Bena 13:59:00 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 13:59:12 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 13:59:20 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started 13:59:24 <Zakim> +Ivan 13:59:52 <Zakim> + +49.630.138.9.aaaa 14:00:31 <Zakim> +McCarron 14:00:49 <manu_> zakim, I am IPCaller 14:01:03 <Zakim> +??P2 14:01:05 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa 14:01:28 <ShaneM> zakim, who is here 14:01:33 <Zakim> sorry, manu_, I do not see a party named 'IPCaller' 14:01:42 <ivan> zakim, ??P2 is manu 14:02:08 <Zakim> ShaneM, you need to end that query with '?' 14:02:20 <Steven> My current call is overrunning; on my way shortly 14:02:26 <Benjamin> zakim, aaaa is Benjamin 14:02:30 <manu_> Zakim, I am ??P2 14:02:31 <Zakim> +manu; got it 14:02:51 <Zakim> +Benjamin; got it 14:02:55 <Zakim> sorry, manu_, I do not see a party named '??P2' 14:03:12 <ivan> zakim, who is here? 14:03:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ivan, Benjamin, McCarron, manu 14:03:13 <Zakim> On IRC I see ShaneM, RRSAgent, trackbot, Zakim, Benjamin, manu_, Steven, tinkster1, csarven, ivan 14:04:18 <markbirbeck> markbirbeck has joined #rdfa 14:05:14 <ShaneM> Zakim, McCarron is ShaneM 14:05:14 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it 14:05:50 <markbirbeck> zakim, code? 14:05:54 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck 14:06:18 <Zakim> + +0785583aabb 14:06:39 <tinkster> tinkster has joined #rdfa 14:07:07 <Zakim> + +0208761aacc 14:07:17 <markbirbeck> zakim, i am aacc 14:07:17 <Zakim> +markbirbeck; got it 14:07:23 <ivan> zakim, aabb is tinkster 14:07:23 <Zakim> +tinkster; got it 14:07:58 <ivan> scribenick: markbirbeck 14:09:33 <markbirbeck> TOPIC: RDFa DOM API 14:09:35 <Benjamin> zakim, mute me 14:09:36 <manu_> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-dom-api/ 14:09:37 <Zakim> Benjamin should now be muted 14:09:48 <markbirbeck> Manu: I think we're pretty much ready for FPWD. 14:10:00 <manu_> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-dom-api/#dom-node-filters 14:10:14 <markbirbeck> ...There are some potential changes that have been discussed on the mailing-list. 14:10:41 <markbirbeck> ...Consensus seems to be that we can get rid of this interface entirely. 14:11:13 <markbirbeck> ...The containsRdfa() is a little more contentious -- I haven't heard back from Benjamin yet. 14:11:40 <markbirbeck> ...The argument for removing it is that documents contain RDFa simply by having a stylesheet, so this method doesn't help us much. 14:12:14 <Benjamin> zakim, unmute me 14:12:14 <Zakim> Benjamin should no longer be muted 14:12:18 <markbirbeck> ...Counter-argument is that it allows you to test for the presence of items with a query. 14:12:19 <Benjamin> q+ 14:12:24 <manu_> ack Benjamin 14:12:46 <markbirbeck> Benjamin: Happy to see them removed. 14:13:58 <markbirbeck> Mark: In my implementation I use ask() which is based on SPARQL's 'ASK'. 14:14:14 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Would also like to see a count of number of triples in the store. 14:14:16 <Benjamin> zakim, mute me 14:14:16 <Zakim> Benjamin should now be muted 14:14:23 <markbirbeck> Manu: Pretty sure we have this. 14:14:34 <ivan> q+ 14:14:39 <manu_> ack ivan 14:14:44 <markbirbeck> ...Can remove these things before FPWD. 14:14:49 <markbirbeck> ...Anything else? 14:14:58 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Have two questions. 14:15:11 <markbirbeck> ...RDFTriple interface has a strange FORTRAN feel to it. 14:15:14 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-work 14:15:14 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made 14:15:15 <Zakim> +Steven 14:15:54 <markbirbeck> ...Any reason for not going direct to subject/predicate/object properties? 14:16:22 <markbirbeck> Manu: Originally had a tuple method way of accessing, but we probably don't need this any longer. 14:16:24 <Benjamin> zakim, unmute me 14:16:24 <Zakim> Benjamin should no longer be muted 14:16:31 <markbirbeck> ...Benjamin, do you have any thoughts on this? 14:17:06 <markbirbeck> Benjamin: We did this to support list comprehensions. But then we found out that we can't do them. 14:17:15 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Propose that we nuke those as well. 14:17:23 <Benjamin> zakim, mute me 14:17:23 <Zakim> Benjamin should now be muted 14:17:30 <Benjamin> +1 14:17:54 <ShaneM> zakim, who is noisy? 14:18:05 <Zakim> ShaneM, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: manu (38%), markbirbeck (4%) 14:18:12 <manu_> PROPOSAL: Remove 'rdfa' interface for RDFa DOM API FPWD including 'getElements()' and 'containsRDFa()' 14:18:21 <ivan> +1 14:18:22 <manu_> PROPOSAL: Remove 'rdfa' interface from RDFa DOM API FPWD including 'getElements()' and 'containsRDFa()' 14:18:32 <manu_> +1 14:18:35 <Benjamin> +1 14:18:40 <tinkster> +1 14:18:42 <markbirbeck> +1 14:18:52 <ShaneM> +1 14:18:53 <Steven> No opinion 14:19:04 <manu_> RESOLVED: Remove 'rdfa' interface from RDFa DOM API FPWD including 'getElements()' and 'containsRDFa()' 14:20:02 <manu_> PROPOSAL: Remove indexed getter methods from RDF Triple interface for RDFa DOM API FPWD. 14:20:03 <ivan> +1 14:20:04 <tinkster> +1 14:20:09 <manu_> +1 14:20:10 <ShaneM> +1 14:20:16 <Benjamin> +1 14:20:30 <Steven> =0 14:20:31 <markbirbeck> +1 14:20:53 <manu_> RESOLVED: Remove indexed getter methods from RDF Triple interface for RDFa DOM API FPWD. 14:21:22 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Also would like to bring up the question of the parser interface that was discussed on the list. 14:21:39 <manu_> q+ 14:21:53 <markbirbeck> Manu: Like the proposal on the list. 14:22:13 <manu_> ack manu_ 14:23:44 <ivan> q+ 14:23:55 <manu_> ack ivan 14:24:01 <markbirbeck> Mark: What about removing parse.iterate()? 14:24:24 <manu_> q+ 14:24:25 <tinkster> ivan++ 14:24:31 <manu_> ack manu_ 14:24:36 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Agree with this, but would prefer to issue with a note, and leave this until next time. 14:26:40 <ivan> q+ 14:26:45 <manu_> ack ivan 14:27:19 <markbirbeck> Manu: Feel uneasy changing it. 14:27:55 <markbirbeck> Ivan: People implementing should know that it's an FPWD. 14:27:57 <markbirbeck> q+ 14:28:04 <manu_> ack markbirbeck 14:29:48 <Benjamin> zakim, unmute me 14:29:48 <Zakim> Benjamin should no longer be muted 14:29:52 <Benjamin> q+ 14:30:02 <markbirbeck> Manu: Just looking to see how easy it would be to take this out. 14:30:33 <markbirbeck> Benjamin: What are we talking about removing? The TripleIterator? 14:30:52 <markbirbeck> Manu: Yes, it's what used to be the TripleIterator....it's the DataIterator. 14:32:17 <Benjamin> zakim, mute me 14:32:17 <Zakim> Benjamin should now be muted 14:33:12 <manu_> PROPOSAL: Add notes to RDFa DOM API FPWD that make it clear that the .iterate() method is a feature that will almost certainly change. 14:33:14 <markbirbeck> Manu: There are 18 places where this is referenced, so would be too much work to change now. 14:33:27 <ivan> +1 14:33:31 <manu_> +1 14:33:32 <tinkster> +1 14:33:35 <markbirbeck> Mark: Can live with this, provided that there is a clear note. 14:33:37 <markbirbeck> +1 14:33:43 <Benjamin> 0 14:33:45 <Steven> OK 14:33:55 <Benjamin> zakim, unmute me 14:33:55 <Zakim> Benjamin should no longer be muted 14:34:10 <ShaneM> +0 14:34:15 <manu_> RESOLVED: Add notes to RDFa DOM API FPWD that make it clear that the .iterate() method is a feature that will almost certainly change. 14:34:30 <markbirbeck> Benjamin: Didn't really understand the criticism of the interface, so would prefer to see further discussion. 14:34:40 <Benjamin> zakim, mute me 14:34:40 <Zakim> Benjamin should now be muted 14:38:31 <markbirbeck> Mark: One last question relates to the removal of '?' from the select() method. Is this a typo? 14:38:44 <markbirbeck> Manu: No. The query is now separate from the results template. 14:39:01 <manu_> PROPOSAL: Publish the current RDFa DOM API document, including the changes RESOLVED on the telecon today, as a FPWD. 14:39:04 <markbirbeck> Mark: Ah...will propose that we revert after FPWD. :) 14:39:04 <ShaneM> +1 14:39:09 <tinkster> +1 14:39:11 <markbirbeck> +1 14:39:11 <ivan> +1 14:39:11 <Steven> +1 14:39:16 <Benjamin> +1 14:39:19 <manu_> +1 14:39:26 <ivan> clap clap clap 14:39:33 <markbirbeck> Excellent work guys. 14:39:52 <manu_> RESOLVED: Publish the current RDFa DOM API document, including the changes RESOLVED on the telecon today, as a FPWD. 14:40:05 <markbirbeck> Manu: Should the short name be 'rdfa-dom-api'? 14:40:12 <tinkster> or "rdfa-api"? 14:40:14 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Support that and we should propose it. 14:41:10 <manu_> PROPOSAL: The short-name for the RDFa DOM API should be "rdfa-api" 14:41:13 <Steven> +1 14:41:14 <markbirbeck> Manu: Would anyone prefer having 'dom' in there? 14:41:15 <tinkster> +1 14:41:17 <Benjamin> +1 14:41:20 <manu_> +1 14:41:20 <ivan> +1 14:41:27 <markbirbeck> +1 14:42:00 <manu_> PROPOSAL: The title for the RDFa DOM API document should be changed from "RDFa DOM API 1.1" to "RDFa API 1.1" 14:42:06 <tinkster> +0.5 14:42:06 <manu_> RESOLVED: The short-name for the RDFa DOM API should be "rdfa-api" 14:42:14 <Benjamin> +1 14:42:18 <ivan> +1 14:42:19 <markbirbeck> Shouldn't it be "RDFa 1.1 API"? 14:42:32 <markbirbeck> -1 14:42:33 <markbirbeck> :) 14:44:04 <markbirbeck> Manu: Does the title always need to contain a version number at the end? 14:44:07 <markbirbeck> Shane: No. 14:44:17 <markbirbeck> ...Does the spec have a dependency on RDFa 1.1? 14:44:23 <ShaneM> I like rdfa-api for a short name... 14:44:59 <manu_> PROPOSAL: The title for the RDFa DOM API document should be changed from "RDFa DOM API 1.1" to "RDFa API" 14:45:03 <manu_> +1 14:45:07 <ivan> +1 14:45:15 <Benjamin> +1 14:45:15 <markbirbeck> +1 14:45:20 <tinkster> +1 14:45:32 <ShaneM> +1 14:45:39 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Would you like to add my diagram? 14:45:40 <markbirbeck> q+ 14:46:40 <ShaneM> I'm not excited about introducing the diagram right now 14:46:53 <markbirbeck> Manu: Time constraints say not. 14:46:59 <Benjamin> no it was an old one 14:47:03 <Steven> +1 14:47:05 <Benjamin> zakim, unmute me 14:47:05 <Zakim> Benjamin should no longer be muted 14:47:08 <markbirbeck> Mark: Nice diagram, but would prefer that it was a proper UML one. 14:47:27 <manu_> RESOLVED: The title for the RDFa DOM API document should be changed from "RDFa DOM API 1.1" to "RDFa API" 14:47:28 <Benjamin> zakim, mute me 14:47:28 <Zakim> Benjamin should now be muted 14:49:04 <markbirbeck> TOPIC: ISSUE-23 @profile order 14:49:31 <markbirbeck> Manu: We delayed the vote to give me time to respond. 14:49:45 <markbirbeck> ...Mark argued that it was up to the language to choose the processing order. 14:50:01 <markbirbeck> ...However, the languages we have do 'last takes priority'. 14:50:03 <markbirbeck> q+ 14:50:11 <manu_> ack benjamin 14:50:18 <manu_> ack markbirbeck 14:52:10 <manu_> zakim, mute benjamin 14:52:10 <Zakim> Benjamin should now be muted 14:52:23 <domel> domel has joined #rdfa 14:53:32 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Microformats usage has more weight. 14:53:56 <markbirbeck> Manu: How should we word this? Does the left-most take precedence, or are they processed in reverse order? 14:53:59 <manu_> PROPOSAL: When two profiles in the same @profile attribute contradict, the left-most declaration takes precedence. 14:54:05 <manu_> +0 14:54:08 <markbirbeck> Toby: Precedence is better. 14:54:11 <tinkster> +1 14:54:18 <Benjamin> +1 14:54:22 <markbirbeck> +1 14:54:33 <Steven> +0 14:54:36 <markbirbeck> Shane: Should this go in the processing rules or in the definition of the attribute? 14:54:38 <ivan> +1 14:54:52 <markbirbeck> Toby: It's already in there now but with the wrong wording. 14:55:01 <markbirbeck> Shane: No it's not. 14:55:05 <markbirbeck> Toby: Yes it is. 14:55:12 <markbirbeck> Shane: No it's not. 14:55:18 <markbirbeck> Toby: Yes it is. 14:55:35 <manu_> RESOLVED: When two profiles in the same @profile attribute contradict, the left-most declaration takes precedence. 14:56:08 <markbirbeck> TOPIC: Error reporting 14:56:17 <markbirbeck> Moved to next telecon. 14:56:23 <markbirbeck> TOPIC: JSON-LD 14:56:25 <manu_> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/specs/source/json-ld/ 14:56:36 <markbirbeck> Manu: Originates from Mark's RDFj work. 14:56:41 <markbirbeck> (Thanks. :) ) 14:57:20 <markbirbeck> ....Uses RDFa's concept of a 'context' so that CURIEs can be used in JSON. 14:58:17 <markbirbeck> ...Discussed with various groups and there is a lot of interest. 14:58:28 <markbirbeck> ...Dovetails with RDFa API. 14:58:40 <markbirbeck> (Jason LD...sounds like a rapper.) 14:58:45 <ivan> q+ 14:58:53 <markbirbeck> Manu: Comments? 14:59:14 <markbirbeck> Ivan: We have an RDF Next Steps workshop in a few weeks. 14:59:34 <markbirbeck> ...One of the topics is a JSON serialisation. 15:00:07 <ShaneM> What do people think of: 15:00:07 <ShaneM> <p>If any conflict arises between two RDFa Profiles associated with URIs in the <aref>profile</aref> value, the declaration from the RDFa Profile associated with the left-most URI takes precedence.</p> ? 15:02:18 <Zakim> -tinkster 15:07:22 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF/NextStepWorkshop # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000277