Chatlog 2011-10-06

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

13:27:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:27:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/06-rdfa-irc
13:27:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:27:35 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
13:27:37 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
13:27:37 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 33 minutes
13:27:38 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:27:38 <trackbot> Date: 06 October 2011
13:27:47 <ivan> Chair: Manu
13:55:42 <manu1> Guest: Niklas (lindstream) Lindström
13:55:42 <manu1> Guest: Toby (tinkster) Inkster
13:55:42 <manu1> Guest: Henri (bergie) Bergius
13:56:18 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Oct/0000.html
13:57:32 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdfa
13:58:34 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdfa
13:58:35 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdfa
13:59:44 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
13:59:52 <Steven> Steven has joined #rdfa
14:00:05 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:00:13 <Zakim> +??P11
14:00:21 <ShaneM> zakim, I am ??P11
14:00:31 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
14:00:31 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:00:41 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:00:43 <Zakim> +Ivan
14:00:45 <Zakim> +??P25
14:00:47 <Zakim> +??P20
14:00:50 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P25
14:00:50 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
14:01:00 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P20
14:01:01 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
14:01:16 <Zakim> +scor
14:02:35 <Zakim> +??P41
14:02:59 <Zakim> + +1.415.686.aaaa
14:03:12 <gkellogg> zakim, I am +1.415.686.aaaa
14:03:12 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
14:03:26 <bergie> zakim, I am ??P41
14:03:26 <Zakim> +bergie; got it
14:04:08 <Zakim> +Steven
14:04:33 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
14:04:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see ShaneM, Ivan, manu1, niklasl, scor, bergie, gkellogg, Steven
14:04:48 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Oct/0000.html
14:04:57 <manu1> scribenick: ShaneM
14:05:02 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa
14:05:39 <niklasl> q+
14:05:48 <Steven> I posted an announcement of ODF 1.2 to rdfa.info
14:06:07 <manu1> ack niklasl
14:06:18 <ShaneM> TOPIC: Rechartering
14:06:19 <ShaneM> Ivan notes that we don't need to recharter to change @src. Manu is concerned that moving API work to a Community Group may require re-chartering.
14:06:19 <ShaneM> Ivan: However, before we get into this - we have a number of remaining technical issues.
14:06:45 <manu1> Topic: Remaining Technical Issues
14:07:30 <Zakim> +??P57
14:07:39 <ShaneM> 1) We need to decide on what the list of acceptable terms defined by the initialization context are in HTML and XHTML.
14:07:54 <ShaneM> 2) We need to specify the behavior of @inlist and @rev, when used together.
14:08:08 <ShaneM> 3) We need to figure out what to call "Default Profiles" now that we don't have profiles, and how those documents are expressed.
14:08:11 <gkellogg> 4) We need to discuss multi-valued @about and @resource.
14:09:29 <ShaneM> MS: We should deal with these issues before we discuss the administrative issues
14:09:34 <manu1> q+ to clarify what we're doing about LC
14:09:57 <ShaneM> IH: We shouldn't put out a new last call before the HTML Data task force has done anything.  That wouldn't be very smart.
14:10:22 <ShaneM> ... Gregg's issue is something that is within the baliwick of that taskforce.
14:10:53 <ShaneM> ... my proposal is that we get the draft done with everything sorted except the multi @about / @ resource and publish a working draft.
14:10:54 <manu1> ack manu1
14:10:54 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to clarify what we're doing about LC
14:11:33 <ShaneM> MS: I agree.  What I was trying to say is that we should start moving towards last call.  We need to make it clear to everyone that we are planning on this.  The technical issues are sorted modulo stuff on the call.
14:11:49 <ShaneM> IH: Yes, but we should stil do a working draft so the task force has a solid thing to look at.
14:12:51 <ShaneM> MS: I did talk with Jeni, and she thinks that we have addressed most issues already.  multi about / resource has no use cases.  img / src change might be requested, but we are already planning to do that.
14:13:00 <Zakim> +??P60
14:13:16 <ShaneM> ... itemref-like support.  We have pushed back on that - no strong use case.  We might do something close to it with multi about / resource.
14:13:23 <bergie> Zakim, +??P60 is me
14:13:23 <Zakim> sorry, bergie, I do not recognize a party named '+??P60'
14:13:54 <bergie> Zakim, i am ??P60 
14:13:54 <Zakim> +bergie; got it
14:14:01 <ShaneM> MS: My concern is that we are not pushing this out and are thus creating more and more confusion in the market about RDFa. Let's get this done and out there.
14:14:31 <ShaneM> ... any additional changes we might make would be to address schema.org requirements, but they seem to be on board with most of RDFa 1.1 at this point.
14:15:48 <ShaneM> MS: rough plan is have technical discussions, generate a working draft, let people know we need feedback if they have concerns before we go into third last call.
14:16:28 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #rdfa
14:17:07 <ShaneM> Topic: Media Types and RDFa TAG Issue
14:17:07 <ShaneM> MS: one more issue.... TimBL has some concerns about W3C specs that have no media type associated. This may become a TAG issue. RDFa Core 1.1 does not define a media type for XML+RDFa - should it?
14:17:14 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss media type
14:17:37 <ShaneM> ... The tag would like there to be some way to follow your nose from the Media Type of a document to the spec to realize what format the document is in.
14:18:12 <ShaneM> ... one option is to change text/html and application/xhtml+xml to say that there might be RDFa in such a document.
14:18:38 <Zakim> +??P63
14:18:44 <ShaneM> IH: The HTML5 spec will eventually include RDFa.
14:18:48 <ShaneM> MS: No, it will not. HTML+RDFa spec is layered on top of HTML5 - HTML5 will never refer to RDFa (based on the current direction of the HTML WG)
14:18:49 <bergie> Zakim, i am ??P63
14:18:49 <Zakim> +bergie; got it
14:19:24 <manu1> ack shaneM
14:19:24 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss media type
14:19:53 <manu1> ShaneM: Don't forget in Core 1.1, we also have XML+RDFa 1.1 and we don't have a media type for that... and we're not going to be able to change text/xml and application/xml
14:20:17 <manu1> ShaneM: If this is a real concern, we might need to do a registration for text/rdfa+xml or application/rdfa+xml
14:20:51 <manu1> Ivan: I thought registrations were pretty easy.
14:22:00 <gkellogg> q+
14:22:23 <manu1> ShaneM: GRDDL announcement mechanism might be adequate.
14:22:29 <manu1> ack gkellogg
14:23:17 <ShaneM> GK: It seems like microdata and rdfa are at odds here.  There is no way to know.  Second the point of RDFa is that you can annotate any language.  This puts the whole situation on its head.
14:23:50 <ShaneM> MS: is there a way to handle this?
14:23:53 <niklasl> q+
14:24:02 <ShaneM> GK: We could parameterize them. It is supported.
14:24:12 <manu1> ack niklasl
14:24:13 <ShaneM> q+ to ask Steven about parameterization
14:24:33 <ShaneM> NL: How is it with SVG Tiny - does it link to RDFa 1.0?  
14:24:36 <tinkster> Re media types, RDFa is not a set of elements, but a set of attributes. Other W3C specs that define sets of XML attributes (e.g. xml:base spec, xml:id spec, XML namespaces spec, XLink, etc) do not define media types.
14:24:55 <ShaneM> IH: The SVG document says that there are ways to incorporate metadata via RDFa 1.0
14:25:10 <scor> q+
14:25:39 <manu1> ack shanem
14:25:39 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask Steven about parameterization
14:25:58 <manu1> q+ to kick back issue to HTML WG?
14:26:25 <manu1> ShaneM: Steven, we talked a bit about parameterization of the media type in XHTML2... could we use that?
14:26:30 <ivan> ack scor 
14:26:31 <ShaneM> Steven: I don't remember how we discussed using parameters in XHTML2.
14:26:49 <Steven> I remember the discussion, but not the conclusion
14:27:20 <Steven> Certainly some XHTML's get announced with a parameter on the media type
14:27:23 <ShaneM> scor: I dont think new media types are feasible.  The browsers might take years to support it, and people wont know that they need to use it.  It is also difficult to do on the server - especialy for static files.
14:28:04 <ShaneM> ... in next drupal we need it to be as seamless as possible.  It cannot be required to change based upon whether RDFa is being sent out or not.
14:28:27 <manu1> ack manu1
14:28:27 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to kick back issue to HTML WG?
14:28:28 <ShaneM> MS: so we shouldn't depend upon the mime type at all?
14:28:31 <Steven>  Accept: application/xhtml+xml;
14:28:31 <Steven>         profile="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd"
14:28:32 <ShaneM> scor: right.
14:28:57 <ShaneM> MS: should we just put it back on HTML5 working group?
14:29:12 <niklasl> q+
14:29:18 <manu1> ack niklasl
14:29:45 <ShaneM> ... if HTML5 references the spec then we are okay  SVG already does, and other languages can do so as well.
14:30:48 <Steven> Not just attributes, also elements
14:30:53 <Steven> XForms has no mediatype
14:31:08 <ShaneM> NL: Yes, I agree.  Do we expect people to just use RDFa stand alone?  No.
14:31:16 <ShaneM> SM: no... but we permit it.
14:31:29 <Steven> I agree, push back
14:31:32 <ShaneM> SM: And remember there are lots of other specs that introduce attributes outside of the context of a markup language.
14:31:43 <ShaneM> MS: So we should just push back to the TAG?
14:31:48 <ShaneM> (general agreement)
14:32:35 <manu1> PROPOSAL: RDFa is not a set of elements, but a set of attributes. Other W3C specs that define sets of XML attributes (e.g. xml:base, aria, spec, xml:id spec, XML namespaces spec, XLink, etc) do not define media types. RDFa falls into the same category as these specs, that is, it doesn't require a MIMEtype registration.
14:32:52 <bergie> looks good
14:33:26 <ShaneM> Steven: Not just attributes - elements are relevant as well.  It doesn't have a root element.  So it shouldn't have its own media type.
14:33:27 <scor> what if several syntaxes are used in the same document (e.g. RDFa and microdata)? can a document define multiple MIME types?
14:33:40 <ShaneM> No - only one.
14:34:02 <scor> so that's another argument against defining MIME types for each of them
14:34:15 <scor> since we can't combine them
14:35:51 <ShaneM> SM: Dont forget that XHTML+RDFa IS a document type.  it should not have its own media type.
14:36:32 <Steven> +1
14:36:57 <ShaneM> ... parameters on the media type are a reasonable way to do this.  profile="someURI someotherURI"
14:37:04 <Steven> q+
14:37:17 <ShaneM> ... profile should be able to take more than one value so a document can reference multiple sets of processing rules
14:37:38 <manu1> ack Steven
14:38:02 <ShaneM> Steven: HTML5 and microdata is a great example.  There shouldn't be two media types for HTML5 and HTML5+microdata. 
14:38:14 <ShaneM> ... so it isn't something that the working group needs to handle.
14:38:57 <ShaneM> IH:  No, the working group needs to update the media registration to allow for any additional parameters, not just microdata or RDFa.
14:39:32 <ShaneM> MS: I think this is a non issue.  No one is going to use this.  It is overly pedantic. Processors will grab documents and try to extract triples.  If they get some, great.  If not, also great.
14:40:17 <niklasl> .. as long as official validators (will) accept the attributes, there is no technical issue.
14:41:20 <ShaneM> IH: didn't the HTML5 working group remove @profile?
14:41:44 <Steven> q+
14:41:50 <Steven> q-
14:42:00 <manu1> http://dev.w3.org/html5/profiles/source/
14:43:24 <ShaneM> Look at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#major-differences-with-rdfa-syntax-1.0
14:43:33 <ShaneM> MS: Push back on the tag first.
14:44:50 <manu1> PROPOSAL: RDFa Core 1.1 is a set of attributes. There are other specs that are just sets of attributes like xml:base, aria, xml:id, XML namespaces, XLink) and those do not define media types. RDFa Core 1.1 falls into the same category as these specs, that is, it doesn't require a Media Type registration.
14:45:03 <manu1> +1
14:45:06 <Steven> +1
14:45:07 <gkellogg> +1
14:45:07 <bergie> +1
14:45:08 <niklasl> +1
14:45:08 <ShaneM> Shane: +1
14:45:09 <scor> +1
14:45:11 <ivan> +1
14:45:15 <manu1> RESOLVED: RDFa Core 1.1 is a set of attributes. There are other specs that are just sets of attributes like xml:base, aria, xml:id, XML namespaces, XLink) and those do not define media types. RDFa Core 1.1 falls into the same category as these specs, that is, it doesn't require a Media Type registration.
14:46:46 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The SVG Tiny 1.1 spec and the ODF spec already refers to the RDFa specification, therefore no action is necessary.
14:46:55 <ivan> +1
14:46:56 <manu1> +1
14:46:57 <Steven> +1
14:46:58 <gkellogg> +1
14:47:00 <ShaneM> Shane: +1
14:47:06 <bergie> +1
14:47:06 <scor> +1
14:47:12 <manu1> RESOLVED: The SVG Tiny 1.1 spec and the ODF spec already refers to the RDFa specification, therefore no action is necessary.
14:48:34 <niklasl> (actually, it seems like it's SVG 1.2 Tiny which explicitly refers to RDFa)
14:49:15 <niklasl> with that, +1
14:49:27 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The text/xml, application/xml, text/html and application/xhtml+xml MIMETypes are not under the purview of this Working Group and therefore this WG cannot refer to the RDFa Core 1.1 or XHTML+RDFa or HTML+RDFa or Microdata specifications. The WG associated with each of those MIMETypes will need to add them to the associated specification.
14:49:42 <ShaneM> s/MIMETypes/Media Types/
14:49:46 <ShaneM> Shane: +1
14:49:46 <ivan> +1
14:49:47 <gkellogg> +1
14:49:47 <manu1> +1
14:49:48 <Steven> +1
14:49:48 <bergie> +1
14:49:49 <scor> +1
14:49:50 <niklasl> +1
14:50:10 <manu1> RESOLVED: The text/xml, application/xml, text/html and application/xhtml+xml Media Types are not under the purview of this Working Group and therefore this WG cannot refer to the RDFa Core 1.1 or XHTML+RDFa or HTML+RDFa or Microdata specifications. The WG associated with each of those Media Types will need to add them to the associated specification.
14:50:47 <ShaneM> TOPIC: rel / rev values
14:51:29 <ShaneM> We need a volunteer.  No one wants to do it.
14:51:59 <ShaneM> We need to go through and remove things from default profile(s) that we don't want to handle any longer.  Semantics have changed for some values.
14:52:54 <Steven> ZAKIM, WHO IS NOISY?
14:53:10 <Zakim> Steven, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: gkellogg (35%)
14:53:13 <ShaneM> ACTION: ShaneM to review rel / rev values and find items that should be removed
14:53:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-97 - Review rel / rev values and find items that should be removed [on Shane McCarron - due 2011-10-13].
14:53:57 <Steven> Shane++
14:53:57 <ivan> [[[
14:53:59 <ivan> Backwards compatibility with RDFa 1.0 is of great importance. That means, in general, that all triples that are produced via the October 2008 version of RDFa, should still be generated in the new version. For each new feature, if there is doubt or a perceived problem with respect to this, the guideline should be not to include the feature in the set of modifications. The two minor features the Working Group has identified and which may constitute possible exceptions
14:53:59 <ivan> this rule, is the default XML Literal generation (see the proposal and the corresponding thread for details), and the list of predefined @rel/@rev values that automatically generate triples (these predefined values are under re-evaluation by the HTML community, and inconsistencies may occur if all RDF triples are generated). 
14:54:01 <ivan> ]]]
14:55:32 <manu1> Topic: Default Profile language
14:54:53 <gkellogg> What about initial evaluation context?
14:55:29 <ShaneM> Proposal to use the term 'initial evaluation context'.
14:57:08 <ShaneM> SM: remove the section that describes how to specify default profiles.
14:57:51 <gkellogg> didn't we want to be able to add terms in the future?
14:58:27 <ivan> q+
14:58:49 <gkellogg> My implementation parses the profile docs to create constant definitions in the parser
14:58:56 <ShaneM> MS: We can't just use the spec.  We need an external document.
14:59:18 <ShaneM> ... publishing cycle at the W3C is too long.  External document is used to maintain the data.
14:59:44 <manu1> ack ivan
14:59:59 <ShaneM> IH: use the different name, but keep the current mechanism.
15:00:17 <ShaneM> ... the mechanism provides the possibility to either hardcode or use caching and retrieve or whatever.
15:00:22 <ShaneM> ... we don't want to impose that.
15:01:01 <ShaneM> ... not in favor of hardcoding.
15:01:04 <gkellogg> +1 to ivan
15:01:05 <ShaneM> SM: okay
15:01:30 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Use the terminology 'initial evaluation context' to specify the initial list of terms and prefixes that should be used by a processor.
15:01:46 <ShaneM> IH: might need to change names of triple predicates.
15:01:47 <manu1> +1
15:01:48 <ShaneM> Shane: +1
15:01:48 <niklasl> +1
15:01:48 <gkellogg> +1
15:01:57 <ivan> +1
15:02:03 <Steven> +1
15:02:31 <manu1> RESOLVED: Use the terminology 'initial evaluation context' to specify the initial list of terms and prefixes that should be used by a processor.
15:04:12 <ShaneM> ShaneM has left #rdfa
15:04:13 <manu1> rrsagent, make logs public
15:04:44 <ivan> ivan has left #rdfa
15:04:51 <Zakim> -ShaneM
15:04:55 <Zakim> -gkellogg
15:05:01 <Zakim> -scor
15:05:05 <Zakim> -Steven
15:05:20 <niklasl> niklasl has left #rdfa
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000237