From RDFa Working Group Wiki
See CommonScribe Control Panel, original RRSAgent log
and preview nicely formatted version.
13:55:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:55:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/29-rdfa-irc
13:55:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:55:33 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
13:55:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
13:55:36 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:55:36 <trackbot> Date: 29 September 2011
13:55:36 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
13:55:42 <manu1> Guest: Niklas (lindstream) Lindström
13:56:20 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Sep/0102.html
13:56:37 <manu1> Chair: Manu
14:00:20 <Knud> Knud has joined #rdfa
14:00:35 <lindstream> lindstream has joined #rdfa
14:00:50 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
14:01:15 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:01:15 <ShaneM> ShaneM has left #rdfa
14:01:22 <Zakim> + +3539149aaaa
14:01:31 <Knud> zakim, I am +aaaa
14:01:31 <Zakim> sorry, Knud, I do not see a party named '+aaaa'
14:01:35 <SebastianGermesin> SebastianGermesin has joined #rdfa
14:01:39 <Zakim> +??P34
14:01:41 <Knud> zakim, I am aaaa
14:01:41 <Zakim> +Knud; got it
14:01:45 <Knud> zakim, mute me
14:01:45 <Zakim> Knud should now be muted
14:01:54 <lindstream> zakim, I am ??P34
14:01:54 <Zakim> +lindstream; got it
14:02:05 <Zakim> +??P37
14:02:16 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P37
14:02:17 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
14:02:18 <Zakim> +??P39
14:02:21 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P39
14:02:21 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
14:02:39 <Zakim> + +68185775aabb
14:02:47 <SebastianGermesin> Zakim, I am aabb
14:02:47 <Zakim> +SebastianGermesin; got it
14:03:46 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
14:03:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see Knud (muted), lindstream, gkellogg, manu1, SebastianGermesin
14:04:26 <manu1> Scribe: Knud
14:04:44 <Knud> manu: updates to the agenda?
14:05:03 <Zakim> +Steven
14:07:28 <Knud> … talked with Jeni Tennison in HTML data TF
14:08:00 <Knud> … we believe that RDFa 1.1 fulfils what this group wants
14:09:10 <Knud> … Is test-suite up to date?
14:09:41 <Knud> Greg: suite has been updated recently, should be pretty much up to date
14:09:56 <Knud> … there are still RDFa 1.0 tests in there - should they remain?
14:11:22 <gkellogg> Core rdfa-test-suite updated, not my own.
14:11:34 <Steven> q+
14:12:22 <Knud> steven: I'm on ODF technical committee. ODF 1.2 is about to become standard.
14:12:23 <lindstream> q+
14:12:30 <manu1> ack Steven
14:12:33 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:12:34 <Knud> … there will be a short quote about RDFa and XForms in it
14:13:07 <Knud> lindstream: did anybody look closer at rNews inclusion in schema.org?
14:13:31 <Knud> manu: not in detail
14:14:26 <Knud> lindstream: wondering if rNews will change to use MicroData instead of RDFa
14:14:47 <manu1> ACTION: Manu to ask IPTC what status of RDFa support for rNews will be in the future.
14:14:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-95 - Ask IPTC what status of RDFa support for rNews will be in the future. [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-10-06].
14:14:53 <Knud> manu: I'll ask Evan and others in IPTC about that
14:15:08 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-108: Refine/deprecate Link relations
14:15:30 <Knud> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/108
14:16:04 <Knud> manu: someone needs to do this - any volunteers?
14:16:04 <Knud> No volunteers, postpone until next time.
14:16:33 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-104: link/meta in HTML5 flow content
14:16:41 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/104
14:17:04 <Knud> manu: this is not something we need to address in this WG
14:17:41 <Knud> … some old browser versions will move link and meta statements from body to head, messing up your markup
14:17:51 <Steven> q+
14:18:06 <manu1> ack Steven
14:18:07 <Steven> Nice to see HTML5 discovering XHTML2 features
14:19:06 <Knud> steven: it doesn't matter to us. Our rules will work anyway.
14:19:15 <gkellogg> q+
14:19:29 <Knud> manu: but a JS implementation might not work in old browsers
14:19:33 <manu1> ack gkellogg
14:20:00 <Knud> gkellog: isn't this an issue for the HTML WG?
14:20:43 <Knud> manu: yes, but we should make a decision and then I can raise it in the HTML WG.
14:21:18 <lindstream> q+
14:22:03 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:22:18 <Knud> gkellog: HTML WG needs to take a stand on this
14:22:42 <Knud> lindstream: didn't Jeni already raise this with HTML WG? Shouldn't we just back her on this?
14:23:44 <Knud> manu: based on our discussion here, I can raise this in HTML WG? Propose to have this in the HTML 5 spec, instead of just in the MicroData spec. I personally don't like the use of LINK and META in the body of the document.
14:23:46 <gkellogg> PROPOSAL: The RDFWA WG supports the use of link & meta in the body of HTML5 documents.
14:24:52 <lindstream> q+
14:26:23 <lindstream> +1
14:26:24 <gkellogg> +1
14:26:26 <SebastianGermesin> +1
14:26:26 <Steven> +1
14:26:28 <Knud> Knud: +1
14:26:29 <manu1> -1 (but don't feel strongly about it)
14:26:44 <manu1> RESOLVED: The RDFWA WG supports the use of link & meta in the body of HTML5 documents.
14:27:28 <lindstream> q+
14:27:52 <manu1> ACTION: Manu to push issue with HTML WG on LINK/META elements in body.
14:27:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-96 - Push issue with HTML WG on LINK/META elements in body. [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-10-06].
14:28:13 <Knud> lindstream: we should mention somewhere that hidden data is hard to maintain, and RDFa focuses on visible data
14:28:14 <gkellogg> q+
14:28:19 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:28:38 <manu1> ack gkellogg
14:29:57 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-101: RDF 1.1 and plain literals
14:30:06 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/101
14:30:35 <lindstream> q+
14:33:41 <Knud> lindstream: we should get some more input from RDF WG on how this should be handled
14:36:11 <lindstream> q+ :)
14:36:28 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:36:28 <Zakim> lindstream, you wanted to say )
14:36:49 <Knud> lindstream: we are conflating two issues: what the test suite should check for and ... what a serialization should do
14:39:29 <gkellogg> q+
14:40:00 <manu1> ack gkellogg
14:40:06 <Knud> … in RDFa 1.1, there is no semantic distinction between xsd:string and plain literal.
14:40:21 <Knud> manu: but it still breaks things like SPARQL queries, we need more input from RDF WG on this. It's just not very clear what they expect specs to say based on that decision.
14:42:13 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-101 due to a lack of concrete guidance on how the RDF WG's plain literal decision impacts RDFa 1.1
14:42:17 <Knud> Knud: +1
14:42:18 <gkellogg> +1
14:42:19 <lindstream> +1
14:42:20 <manu1> +1
14:42:20 <SebastianGermesin> +1
14:42:31 <Steven> +1
14:42:35 <manu1> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-101 due to a lack of concrete guidance on how the RDF WG's plain literal decision impacts RDFa 1.1
14:42:50 <manu1> Topic: RDF API and RDFa API Work
14:44:11 <lindstream> q+
14:44:18 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:44:38 <Knud> manu: This is just a suggestion - but perhaps we should spin the API work out into a community group. I think the work should take more time to incubate - we're not having many people screaming for these features, and there are very few frameworks that even deal with this sort of data these days. If it were in a CG, we could incubate on it longer - let it grow naturally and then standardize once we feel that there are enough implementation experience. Any thoughts about this?
14:45:18 <Knud> lindstream: The RDF API is probably beyond our own WG's scope
14:45:18 <Knud> manu: It's in scope, but it would be good to get some folks from RDF WG involved - which is why we might try to move it elsewhere.
14:45:20 <manu1> q+
14:45:54 <Knud> gkellog: why did we change our name to WebApps WG, if not to deal with Web applications, which means to deal with APIs
14:47:35 <Knud> manu: it's unlikely that any browser vendors will support the APIs any time soon
14:47:51 <Knud> … they seem to be rather hostile towards them
14:48:21 <lindstream> q+
14:48:27 <manu1> ack manu1
14:48:32 <Knud> … there doesn't seem to be a strong demand for it in the community currently either
14:49:00 <Knud> lindstream: one of the reasons I was invited into this WG was my interest in such APIs
14:49:20 <Knud> … but yes, maybe it could take some time to incubate
14:50:13 <lindstream> q+
14:50:15 <Knud> manu: this wouldn't halt the work on the APIs, instead it would give them more time.
14:50:47 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:51:37 <Knud> lindstream: some aspects of the API are more closely related to JSON-LD
14:52:13 <Knud> manu: yes, and this is also the way our company is dealing with this issue - conversion of RDFa to JSON-LD and then using those data structures directly. It's worked very well for us.
14:53:22 <Knud> People think it's a good idea to move this out to a community group
14:53:38 <Knud> manu: that's all from the agenda. Any other business?
14:53:44 <Knud> no other business.
14:53:44 <Zakim> -gkellogg
14:53:46 <Zakim> -Steven
14:53:46 <Zakim> -SebastianGermesin
14:53:48 <Zakim> -manu1
14:53:52 <Zakim> -Knud
14:53:54 <Zakim> -lindstream
14:53:54 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
14:53:56 <Zakim> Attendees were +3539149aaaa, Knud, lindstream, gkellogg, manu1, +68185775aabb, SebastianGermesin, Steven
14:54:33 <lindstream> lindstream has left #rdfa
15:11:20 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:12:45 <Knud> Knud has joined #rdfa
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000155