From RDFa Working Group Wiki
See CommonScribe Control Panel, original RRSAgent log
and preview nicely formatted version.
13:45:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:45:35 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/04/14-rdfa-irc
13:45:37 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:45:37 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
13:45:39 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
13:45:39 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 15 minutes
13:45:40 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:45:40 <trackbot> Date: 14 April 2011
13:45:43 <manu> Chair: Manu
13:45:47 <manu> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Apr/0055.html
13:49:42 <manu> Present: Ted, Manu, Steven, Benjamin, Knud, Nathan
13:49:42 <manu> Regrets: Thomas, ShaneM, Ivan
13:50:49 <Steven> Steven has joined #rdfa
13:54:05 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
13:54:12 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:54:48 <webr3> zakim, i am IPcaller
13:54:48 <Zakim> ok, webr3, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
13:54:55 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #rdfa
13:55:24 <Zakim> +??P20
13:55:27 <manu> zakim, I am ??P20
13:55:27 <Zakim> +manu; got it
14:00:45 <Benjamin> Benjamin has joined #rdfa
14:01:04 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-work
14:01:04 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
14:01:05 <Zakim> +Steven
14:01:08 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
14:01:29 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:01:29 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
14:01:31 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
14:01:31 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
14:02:07 <Knud> Knud has joined #rdfa
14:02:17 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:02:18 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
14:03:13 <Zakim> + +3539149aaaa
14:03:53 <Steven> zakim, mute aaaa
14:03:53 <Zakim> +3539149aaaa should now be muted
14:04:11 <Knud> zakim, I am aaaa
14:04:11 <Zakim> +Knud; got it
14:04:20 <Zakim> + +49.631.205.75.aabb
14:04:34 <Benjamin> zakim, I am aabb
14:04:35 <Zakim> +Benjamin; got it
14:06:00 <Zakim> -manu
14:06:25 <Zakim> +??P20
14:06:28 <manu> zakim, I am ??P20
14:06:28 <Zakim> +manu; got it
14:07:16 <webr3> ScribeNick: webr3
14:07:18 <manu> Topic: Publish the RDFa Primer as a FPWD
14:07:25 <manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2011/WD-rdfa-primer-20110419/
14:07:57 <webr3> manu: It (RDFa Primer) has been reviewed by Manu, Benjamin, TomS
14:08:36 <webr3> ... we've done a final pass for grammar issues and typo's, and think it's ready to go
14:08:39 <webr3> ... any concerns?
14:08:47 <webr3> benjamin: no
14:09:01 <webr3> steven: any diff?
14:09:21 <webr3> manu: there's is just so much diff ... diff not very helpful
14:09:38 <webr3> ... let me check to see if I can find it...
14:09:40 <MacTed> no objection to FPWD (have only been able to skim it, myself)
14:09:54 <manu> Here's the diff: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2011/WD-rdfa-primer-20110419/diff-rdfa-primer-20110408.html
14:10:05 <webr3> nathan: I've also reviewed and was happy with the doc
14:11:23 <manu> PROPOSAL: Publish the RDFa Primer as a First Public Working Draft under the short name 'rdfa-primer'. The publication date should be April 19th 2011.
14:11:24 <Steven> +1
14:11:26 <manu> +1
14:11:28 <webr3> Nathan: +1
14:11:32 <Benjamin> +1
14:11:38 <manu> Ivan is +1 (via mailing list)
14:11:45 <manu> ShaneM is +1 (via mailing list)
14:11:47 <Knud> +1
14:11:59 <MacTed> +0
14:12:17 <manu> RESOLVED: Publish the RDFa Primer as a First Public Working Draft under the short name 'rdfa-primer'. The publication date should be April 19th 2011.
14:12:21 <webr3> macted: I've only been able to skim, hence +0
14:12:34 <manu> Topic: Publish the RDFa API as a heartbeat WD
14:12:44 <manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2011/WD-rdfa-api-20110419/
14:13:13 <manu> Diff for the RDFa API is here: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2011/WD-rdfa-api-20110419/diff-20100923.html
14:15:05 <manu> Merged the Property Group interface into the Projection interface.
14:15:07 <manu> Added the setMapping method to the DocumentData interface.
14:15:09 <manu> Added the RDFa Environment interface
14:15:11 <manu> Removed the Introductory examples as they didn't add much to the readability of the document.
14:15:12 <manu> Added getSubjects(), getProperties, getValues() and renamed getItemsBy* to getProjection*.
14:15:33 <webr3> manu: unsure how many have reviewed the spec in detail
14:15:51 <webr3> nathan: "The following changes have been made since the First Public Working Draft:"
14:17:03 <webr3> nathan: remove "The following changes have been made since the First Public Working Draft:" from status of document section, it's hard to follow
14:17:07 <manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2011/WD-rdfa-api-20110419/#status-of-the-document
14:17:27 <webr3> ... also the RDFa WG is no longer correct, we're publishing as the RDF Web Applications WG now
14:17:56 <Zakim> -Knud
14:18:08 <Benjamin> q+
14:18:13 <webr3> manu: any other concerns?
14:18:26 <MacTed> concur with the bullet=list relocation ...
14:18:35 <webr3> Benjamin: we should publish to get the comments in
14:19:00 <Zakim> +Knud
14:19:04 <manu> Manu: I think we should make Nathan's changes - I'll make them before sending out the publication request.
14:19:06 <Zakim> -Benjamin
14:19:06 <Knud> zakim, mute me
14:19:07 <Zakim> Knud should now be muted
14:19:13 <MacTed> *was* this previously published by the group under the other name? if so... the change should at least be noted
14:19:46 <Zakim> +Benjamin
14:21:19 <webr3> MacTed: we need to be more explicit and ensure it points backwards and forwards
14:21:31 <webr3> nathan notes: it's all the same /TR/ uri though.. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-api/ and back links are there
14:22:07 <webr3> manu: so we should have the old xhtml primer point to the new primer in some way
14:23:57 <webr3> macted: it's primarily out-dated specs that I'm concerned with, perhaps out of scope here, but we need to be aware of it
14:24:10 <webr3> manu: wondering how we approach this
14:24:49 <webr3> nathan: does it affect us now? for this..?
14:25:03 <webr3> can we raise after we +1 these drafts..
14:25:12 <manu> ISSUE: Figure out a way to denote old Working Drafts as "OUTDATED" and place a big warning on the old drafts.
14:25:13 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-88 - Figure out a way to denote old Working Drafts as "OUTDATED" and place a big warning on the old drafts. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/88/edit .
14:26:02 <manu> We need to make 3 changes before publication: 1) Change the name of the RDFa Working Group to RDF Web Applications Working Group, 2) Note that the document has been transferred from the RDFa WG to the RDFWAWG, 3) Place the changes since the FPWD at the bottom of the document.
14:29:17 <manu> PROPOSAL: Publish the RDFa API as a heartbeat Working Draft with the 3 changes requested by the group. The publication date should be April 19th 2011.
14:29:19 <webr3> Nathan: +1
14:29:21 <Benjamin> +1
14:29:21 <manu> +1
14:29:26 <Knud> +1
14:29:44 <MacTed> +1 for changes
14:29:44 <MacTed> +0 proposal (again, have only been able to skim)
14:29:51 <Steven> +1
14:30:00 <manu> RESOLVED: Publish the RDFa API as a heartbeat Working Draft with the 3 changes requested by the group. The publication date should be April 19th 2011.
14:30:25 <manu> Topic: Remaining issues for RDF API
14:30:58 <manu> Scribenick: manu
14:30:58 <manu> Nathan: The changes that I'm looking at before it goes FPWD are pretty simple...
14:31:23 <manu> Nathan: Most of them are around RDF Environment... terms, prefixes, profiles
14:31:29 <webr3> change PrefixMap.resolve return null if prefix not set
14:31:39 <manu> Nathan: That's mostly a cleanup
14:32:05 <manu> Nathan: We had a few optimistic - import prefix mappings and term mappings from a graph - it's out of place / out of scope for the API
14:32:32 <webr3> PrefixMap importFromGraph (in Graph graph, in optional boolean override);
14:33:16 <manu> Nathan: This creates dependency hell - it pulls everything in - people may want it, but no need to have it on here.
14:33:24 <webr3> remove Parser.profile
14:33:36 <manu> Nathan: Most of these are things were optimistically added.
14:34:10 <manu> Nathan: The original idea behind this is that if you have a graph, and have a profile generated by that graph - you want to have it available to you. However, since prefixes can be overwritten during parse, I don't see how it's possible to implement cleanly. You will never be able to have the /all/ of the prefixes mentioned in the document in a clean way.
14:34:25 <webr3> try method on TripleAction change to 'run' or other
14:34:46 <manu> Nathan: The TripleAction interface - we currently have 'try' - but that's used by languages for Exception handling.
14:34:52 <manu> Nathan: So we should rename to 'run'
14:35:02 <webr3> 3 bigger changes
14:35:02 <manu> Nathan: There are 3 bigger changes
14:35:03 <webr3> 1) get rid of NCName description. define term as string w/ no colon or whitespace
14:35:42 <manu> Nathan: The definition of prefixes in other serialization isn't NCName.
14:36:51 <manu> Nathan: Why should the API limit it to NCName - the API should leave this loosely defined.
14:37:01 <manu> Manu: I agree
14:37:03 <webr3> 2) perhaps change 'term' to 'alias'. (AliasMap)
14:37:23 <manu> Manu: We picked terminology from RDFa - but a "Term" in RDF and SPARQL is something completely different.
14:37:36 <manu> s/Manu:/Nathan:/
14:37:46 <manu> Nathan: I suggest that we change 'term' to 'alias'.
14:37:57 <Benjamin> +1 to change term to alias
14:39:26 <manu> Manu: I'm concerned about having two things 'term' and 'alias' when we're really talking about one thing.
14:39:38 <manu> Nathan: RDF and SPARQL don't have these concepts
14:39:41 <webr3> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#sparqlBasicTerms
14:40:02 <webr3> nathan: i agree
14:40:53 <MacTed> +1
14:41:08 <Knud> sounds good to me
14:41:10 <Steven> ok
14:41:13 <Benjamin> +1
14:41:19 <manu> ISSUE: Decide what word we want to use to refer to the concept of RDFa terms - 'term' or 'alias'
14:41:19 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-89 - Decide what word we want to use to refer to the concept of RDFa terms - 'term' or 'alias' ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/89/edit .
14:42:24 <webr3> 3) remove profile.base
14:42:26 <manu> Manu: Why don't you go ahead and change it to 'alias' in the RDF API - we can always raise it as an issue later on.
14:42:32 <manu> Nathan: Ok
14:42:52 <manu> Nathan: The entire API works will full URIs - there are a couple of little things like parsers needing to deal w/ relative URIs is important.
14:43:13 <manu> Nathan: Originally we had a BASE that we could resolve against in the API - however, it's a bit out of scope for the API
14:43:45 <manu> Nathan: The danger is that you have a profile w/ all your settings and you have a BASE - and the parser changes the BASE value while it's parsing - the base is going to change and that could possibly break your code because the BASE changed.
14:44:00 <manu> Nathan: it's only there as a utility method, it's not really necessary for the main functionality.
14:44:06 <manu> Manu: I think we should remove it.
14:44:32 <manu> Manu: that is, unless people really want it in there.
14:44:48 <webr3> add three new methods to graph
14:44:49 <webr3> - subjects( p, o )
14:44:49 <webr3> - predicates( s, o )
14:44:49 <webr3> - objects( s, p )
14:44:49 <webr3> each one of which would return a Set of the related values.
14:45:52 <manu> Nathan: I'm probably going to leave that out for now.
14:46:39 <manu> Nathan: Once you have a grounded graph - one w/ no bnodes - you can do all types of really cool stuff like skolemize / union
14:49:21 <manu> Manu: Maybe we need to wait off on that - seems a bit out of scope right now, but we may get a comment like "You guys need to focus on digital signatures", which would make us want to put support in for grounded graphs.
14:49:22 <manu> Manu: at which point, we'd have to talk about grounded graphs.
14:49:23 <manu> Nathan: These are the things people may be concerned about:
14:49:24 <webr3> 1) rdf concepts
14:49:42 <webr3> 2) subject literals, bnode predicate
14:49:52 <webr3> 3) literal predicates
14:49:58 <webr3> 4) graph literals
14:50:34 <webr3> 5) why not standarize lirbary X (i use lib-X or lib-Y, standardize that!)
14:51:01 <manu> Manu: Our response to those items is going to have to be: Why should we artificially constrain the API? The only issue is when you attempt to serialize the graph and if one tries to serialize a graph in a format that doesn't allow serialization of a portion of the graph, a conforming implementation can just skip over the serializations that it doesn't support.
14:51:24 <Benjamin> q+
14:51:36 <MacTed> s'ok
14:51:44 <manu> Manu: any concerns?
14:51:56 <Steven> no
14:51:58 <manu> Hearing no concerns... moving forward with RDF API direction.
14:52:29 <Benjamin> Could you not hear me?
14:53:27 <manu> Nope, you were muted?
14:53:28 <manu> Benjamin: I think we need a good introduction and simple prose and examples to help explain how to use the API. It's difficult to know how to use the API just by looking at the WebIDL.
14:53:29 <manu> Manu: I agree
14:53:37 <webr3> yes, i agree, needs padded w/ prose
14:54:23 <manu> ACTION: Benjamin to create use cases and example to place into the RDF API document.
14:54:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-72 - Create use cases and example to place into the RDF API document. [on Benjamin Adrian - due 2011-04-21].
14:54:44 <webr3> action: nathan to update rdf api ready for fpwd
14:54:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-73 - Update rdf api ready for fpwd [on Nathan Rixham - due 2011-04-21].
14:57:09 <webr3> q+
14:58:29 <manu> ack Benjamin
14:58:36 <manu> ack [IPcaller]
14:58:57 <manu> Topic: HTML WG ISSUE-120 prefixes/CURIEs issue
14:58:59 <manu> Manu: There is talk that the HTML WG Chair's decision to preserve prefixes/CURIEs in HTML5 and HTML4 is going to be challenged. That is, there has been a formal objection and the new evidence being presented is that Facebook, Google, and Yahoo have not implemented CURIE processing correctly. We know that Facebook implemented it incorrectly, but they want to implement it correctly eventually. We don't know if Google implemented it correctly and we don't know if they want to implement it correctly. We thought Yahoo! had implemented it correctly, but people are now saying that they didn't, and we know that they want to implement it correctly. We need to ping all of these companies and find out if they intend to fix their broken implementations.
14:59:44 <manu> Nathan: I don't think that this is a big issue - big implementers are stating that their broken implementations are just that - they plan to support prefixes/namespaces and need them in there.
15:00:24 <manu> Nathan: Be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you receive applies here.
15:01:41 <Zakim> -MacTed
15:01:42 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
15:01:43 <Zakim> -Steven
15:01:45 <Zakim> -manu
15:01:45 <Zakim> -Knud
15:01:46 <Zakim> -Benjamin
15:01:47 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
15:01:48 <Zakim> Attendees were [IPcaller], manu, Steven, MacTed, +3539149aaaa, Knud, +49.631.205.75.aabb, Benjamin
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000205