Chatlog 2011-09-22

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

13:47:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:47:49 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-rdfa-irc
13:47:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:47:51 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
13:47:53 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
13:47:53 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
13:47:54 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:47:54 <trackbot> Date: 22 September 2011
13:48:01 <manu1> Chair: Manu
13:48:42 <manu1> Guest: Niklas (lindstream) Lindström
13:48:42 <manu1> Guest: Toby (tinkster) Inkster
13:48:59 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Sep/0082.html
13:49:37 <manu1> Scribe: Manu
13:57:55 <SebastianGermesin> SebastianGermesin has joined #rdfa
13:58:17 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
13:58:24 <Zakim> +??P16
13:58:31 <SebastianGermesin> Zakim, I am ??P16
13:58:32 <Zakim> +SebastianGermesin; got it
13:58:37 <lindstream> lindstream has joined #rdfa
13:58:42 <Zakim> +??P18
13:58:49 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P18
13:58:49 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
13:59:51 <Zakim> +??P24
14:00:02 <lindstream> zakim, I am ??P24
14:00:02 <Zakim> +lindstream; got it
14:02:30 <manu1> Sebastian: OMM group will contact us soon - http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/omm/ - they want to use RDFa to achieve some of their goals, will contact us via mailing list soon.
14:02:55 <manu1> zakim: who is on the call?
14:03:17 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
14:03:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see SebastianGermesin, manu1, lindstream
14:04:03 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa
14:04:33 <Zakim> +scor
14:06:41 <manu1> Topic: schema.org workshop
14:06:48 <Steven_> Steven_ has joined #rdfa
14:07:11 <manu1> scor: Lots of interest in the audience - Ralph was there, Ian Hickson was there... etc.
14:07:17 <scor> Ben Adida presented a proposal for a simpler version of RDFa: RDFa 1.1 Lite http://ben.adida.net/presentations/rdfa-2011-09-21/
14:07:30 <manu1> scor: There was a breakout session on syntax - Ben proposed RDFa 1.1 lite
14:07:39 <scor> Guha indicated he found it much simpler than full blown RDFa.
14:07:52 <manu1> scor: very good presentation - audience was very receptive - Guha said that he found it was pretty interesting (RDFa 1.1 lite)
14:07:55 <scor> Guha stated goal for the syntax session: Does the community just want one syntax, or is it ok to have multiple syntaxes?
14:07:57 <Steven_> zakim, code?
14:07:57 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Steven_
14:08:11 <Zakim> +Steven
14:08:17 <scor> We want to make is easy for 90% of the people, while not making it impossible for the rest of the 10% to achieve more advanced use cases. 
14:08:38 <Steven_> rrsagent, here?
14:08:38 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2011/09/22-rdfa-irc#T14-08-38
14:08:41 <scor> Consensus that having multiple syntaxes is the best solution. The W3C HTML Data TF chaired by Jeni should help clarify the differences between the syntaxes: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Html-data-tf 
14:09:04 <manu1> scor: It seemed everyone agreed - even the schema sponsors - that having multiple syntaxes would be the best.
14:09:17 <scor> Martin Hepp raised several pain points with RDFa, like additional nested elements which can be hard to add on existing sites, and the confusion between @rel and @property.  
14:09:45 <Steven_> zakim, who is on the call?
14:09:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see SebastianGermesin, manu1, lindstream, scor, Steven
14:10:35 <scor> The multitype feature missing in microdata is something that was coming up very often during discussions. 
14:10:41 <manu1> scor: Ben made the case of why we have @rel and @property
14:10:56 <scor> Remixing vocabularies was also a popular feature. 
14:11:26 <manu1> scor: One of the reasons that RDFa is still considered for schema.org - that and mixing vocabularies. schema.org sponsors were open to these features - more specialized vocabularies that people will use.
14:11:36 <scor> 96% of rNews merged into schema.org (working on the rest)
14:11:36 <manu1> scor: That was the session on syntax - that was in the morning.
14:12:05 <manu1> scor: Evan Sandhaus and Andreas Gebhardt said that most of rNews has been merged into schema.org.
14:12:10 <scor> http://schema.org/NewsArticle
14:12:48 <scor> schema.org is very open to having more collaboration for incorporating more domain specific schemas, such as scholarly articles (on going with Rachel Sanders). 
14:13:50 <manu1> Manu: Did anybody raise the concern of having one uber-vocabulary for everything?
14:15:07 <manu1> scor: They said that the only centralized concern is DNS and the rest is decentralized - Ralph said that he was pretty happy with the direction. schema.org is not trying to be the uber-vocabulary - they are interested in integrating some schemas and collaborating. However, they want to discuss whether properties should be added to the schema... they may reject properties if they are too specialized.
14:22:18 <manu1> scor: Tantek closed the workshop with four points.
14:22:38 <manu1> scor: 1) Simplicity of the mental model - if all syntaxes can agree on a mental model, then that helps with the syntaxes.
14:23:04 <manu1> scor: 2) Iterating and learning from multiple syntaxes is good. There is no syntax today that makes everyone happy - so best to keep multiple syntaxes.
14:23:39 <manu1> scor: 3) Multiple types is a feature that we need - so that's a good thing to have.
14:24:31 <manu1> scor: 4) People want to innovate effeciently - consensus takes too long - that's why schema.org went ahead and put out the baseline - sometimes best not to wait for consensus, put a stake in the ground and start discussing from there.
14:25:01 <manu1> scor: Most of the folks said that they made some mistakes when launching schema.org - but they wanted something there.
14:26:48 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
14:26:56 <Steven> Steven has joined #rdfa
14:27:58 <manu1> Manu: Okay, so there are a few things that we can focus on - @rel/@property and RDFa 1.1 Lite (which is just a subset of RDFa 1.1)
14:28:17 <Steven_> A 'profile' as we call it
14:28:31 <manu1> Manu: Was there any mention of them supporting RDFa 1.1?
14:28:57 <manu1> scor: Guha said that they are not religious about syntax - but there has not been any official announcement for support for RDFa.
14:29:36 <manu1> scor: Google still claims that they only support Microdata for now. However, we don't have any sort of written statement on RDFa 1.1 support.
14:29:49 <lindstream> q+
14:29:53 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:30:27 <manu1> Niklas: I would expect that they need the @vocab attribute to make the examples work with their ideals... from my point of view, it couldn't be done soon enough so that schema.org could support RDFa 1.1 Lite.
14:31:07 <scor> q+
14:31:11 <manu1> Niklas: If they support that as soon as possible, however - Microdata is not a final spec either. So no reason not to support RDFa 1.1 Lite - we are working on RDF vocabulary for expressing educational content on the Web.
14:31:24 <manu1> Niklas: As it is now, we have to jump through Microdata hoops to get it out on the Web.
14:31:27 <manu1> ack scor
14:32:06 <manu1> scor: Google probably won't care about underlying meaning of @vocab - they won't dereference it... you just publish the HTML, even if RDF vocabulary isn't finished, they won't care about that.
14:32:40 <manu1> Niklas: Yes, and I wouldn't expect them to dereference the vocabulary.
14:32:51 <manu1> s/Niklas/scor/
14:33:14 <manu1> Manu: What are the Microdata issues?
14:33:29 <manu1> Niklas: I have a graph that I'm publishing, and I don't know if that graph will be able to be expressed in Microdata.
14:34:01 <scor> Niklas, why don't you publish both RDFa and micro data for now?
14:34:20 <scor> q+
14:34:27 <manu1> Niklas: I could make Microformats out of it - but it diminishes the power of using RDF internally - I want to use the power of OWL and SKOS and express a coherent information model for the government agency that is in charge of this. There is no sensible model in Microdata at all - it's just a bunch of JSON structures that you get out w/o linkages to anything conceptual.
14:34:30 <manu1> ack scor
14:34:40 <manu1> scor: Can you publish in both syntaxes for now?
14:35:25 <manu1> Niklas: Yes, I'll probably do that - if I generate in HTML, I'll probably generate in only one syntax... right now, it seems like I want to use just Microdata - but pragmatic choice (makes me cringe) - but if you want to be indexed by Google, you have to do that.
14:36:15 <manu1> scor: They accept RDFa for Movies... not very useful for annotating blog posts and other things - you can use Photo instead of Image - they will recognize schema:Photo - event, organization, person
14:36:20 <manu1> scor: They'll fix that
14:36:55 <manu1> scor: About @language - one of the things that Jeni mentioned about Microdata/RDFa - JSON that you get out of Microdata doesn't say anything about language.
14:37:07 <manu1> Niklas: We need language information - swedish, spanish, russian, etc.
14:37:17 <manu1> scor: Your use case would be very good to raise in the Task Force.
14:37:52 <manu1> scor: That Microdata doesn't cut it for you - you need language information.
14:39:24 <manu1> Manu: They could use JSON-LD - it can encode Microdata, RDFa and Microformats - it was designed for that - but Microdata folks might be against that.
14:39:34 <manu1> Niklas: We're on the path to using JSON-LD
14:40:30 <manu1> Niklas: They have an old XML schema, there is no coordination going on - RDF and a sprinkle of OWL and SKOS would do wonders for them - but the toolchain isn't there in Microdata - there is no match. With RDF, RDFa and JSON-LD - everything is coherent there... The RDF model is coherent.
14:41:02 <manu1> Manu: Yes, you'll get nothing but nods of agreement from the people on this call.
14:41:46 <manu1> Niklas: Yes, that's one of the sad things - there doesn't seem to be a consistent mental model here. Splitting people into 'academics' and 'pragmatics' misses the point. If you are going to create something of value you have to do both - you have to be pragmatic and you have to focus on researching what didn't work in the past.
14:41:52 <manu1> scor: Microformats folks would agree with that.
14:49:18 <lindstream> schema.org == http://xkcd.com/927/
14:42:32 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
14:42:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see SebastianGermesin, manu1, lindstream, scor, Steven
14:47:14 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-108: Refine/deprecate Link relations
14:47:31 <lindstream> q+
14:47:37 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/108
14:47:42 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:51:01 <ShaneM> ShaneM has left #rdfa
14:51:16 <lindstream> rel="stylesheet alternate"
14:52:00 <lindstream> q+
14:52:06 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:53:00 <manu1> Manu: We need someone to go through and remove all link relations that have multiple entries like "stylesheet alternate" - we wouldn't support "stylesheet" or "alternate".
14:54:14 <manu1> Manu: We have to change the default profiles as a result of this issue.
14:54:44 <manu1> Niklas: Toby's parser option is interesting - force rel="alternate stylesheet" to be interpreted as rel="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#ALTERNATE_STYLESHEET"
14:54:53 <manu1> Niklas: Problematic to define something like that.
14:55:18 <tinkster> The Microdata to RDF algorithm (which I'm told is being dropped in the next Microdata WD) does precisely that.
14:55:34 <tinkster> (That's where I stole the idea from.)
14:57:02 <manu1> Manu: Ok, we'll keep this open until we have someone that can commit to removing the terms like "stylesheet" and "alternate" - someone that does a full review.
15:01:01 <tinkster> One possibility would be to drop support for "alternate". It's so misused. That way rel="stylesheet alternate" would simply end up like rel="stylesheet" and thus generate a vaguely sensible triple.
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000123