Chatlog 2010-06-03

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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