Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2012-02-02
From RDFa Working Group Wiki
See CommonScribe Control Panel, original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.
14:57:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 14:57:12 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/02-rdfa-irc 14:57:14 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:57:14 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa 14:57:16 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332 14:57:16 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes 14:57:17 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference 14:57:17 <trackbot> Date: 02 February 2012 14:58:59 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started 14:59:17 <Zakim> +??P11 14:59:21 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P11 14:59:24 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it 14:59:41 <Zakim> +??P16 14:59:44 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P16 14:59:44 <Zakim> +manu1; got it 15:01:27 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdfa 15:01:38 <Zakim> +??P19 15:01:47 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P19 15:01:48 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it 15:02:34 <Zakim> + +1.612.217.aaaa 15:02:40 <ShaneM> zakim, aaaa is ShaneM 15:02:44 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it 15:02:48 <ShaneM> zakim, mute me 15:02:52 <Zakim> ShaneM should now be muted 15:04:38 <Zakim> +Steven 15:05:16 <Zakim> +scor 15:06:03 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa 15:06:26 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Feb/0000.html 15:06:33 <niklasl> q+ 15:06:36 <gkellogg> q+ to ask about updates to CURIE 15:16:01 <scor> scribe: scor 15:06:37 <Steven> Manu: Any changes to the Agenda? 15:07:10 <scor> niklasl: should we talk about the issue about @id 15:07:10 <scor> Topic: ISSUE-121: Using @id to set subject in RDFa 15:07:16 <scor> manu1: yes, we have to respond to Sebastian's email 15:07:45 <Zakim> -ShaneM 15:07:50 <scor> manu1: We were clear on the call, there was no support. He misread the straw poll as some people were interested in supporting it when nobody in the WG thinks that it would be a good idea to support @id. 15:08:30 <ShaneM1> ShaneM1 has joined #rdfa 15:09:23 <Zakim> +ShaneM 15:09:29 <ShaneM> zakim, mute me 15:09:29 <Zakim> ShaneM should now be muted 15:09:45 <Zakim> + +1.781.273.aabb 15:09:54 <scor_> scor_ has joined #rdfa 15:10:04 <MacTed> Zakim, aabb is OpenLink_Software 15:10:04 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it 15:10:07 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:10:07 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 15:10:09 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:10:09 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:10:35 <scor_> manu1: His suggestion on @id and @typeof is in HTTP range-14 territory, it is a backwards-incompatible change... it is very complicated matter. 15:10:46 <scor_> niklasl: There is also the magnetism of @typeof now, where you have to check for @rel - I didn't intend to seem like I supported the change. 15:10:55 <niklasl> q+ 15:11:10 <manu1> ack niklasl 15:11:14 <manu1> ack gkellogg 15:11:14 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to ask about updates to CURIE 15:11:19 <ShaneM> zakim, unmute me 15:11:19 <Zakim> ShaneM should no longer be muted 15:11:44 <scor_> Topic: CURIE update in RDFa Core 15:11:44 <scor_> gkellogg: Shouldn't we make the changes to CURIE in RDFa Core - the // and : changes? 15:11:56 <scor_> ShaneM: We approved it during the last call, it's in the spec. 15:13:00 <scor_> niklasl: ShaneM do you want me to write a note about http:// conflict? 15:13:24 <scor_> ShaneM: Is there a formal XML Schema definition for the new production for CURIE? 15:14:11 <scor_> niklasl: instead of a note, maybe we want to add a section? 15:14:21 <scor_> manu1: please suggest a text on the mailing list, Niklas. 15:15:35 <scor_> niklasl: there is already a regex in the IRI rfc 15:15:44 <scor_> niklasl: I'll try to see what we can reuse from there 15:16:01 <scor_> scribe: scor_ 15:16:35 <ShaneM> zakim, mute me 15:16:35 <Zakim> ShaneM should now be muted 15:16:36 <manu1> Topic: RDFa 1.1 Last Call 15:16:44 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/01/31/new-rdfa-drafts-published/ 15:16:57 <Steven> http://rdfa.info/2012/02/02/three-last-call-working-drafts-published-by-the-rdfa-working-group/ 15:17:01 <scor_> manu1: We're in last call. Great job everybody! Everything going smoothly so far... 15:18:01 <scor_> manu1: If a couple of people can write a blog post about the changes in RDFa 1.1, and let people know we're in last call so they can review the spec, that would be great. 15:18:01 <manu1> Topic: Plan for Candidate Recommendation phase 15:18:23 <scor_> manu1: we ask for two interoperable implementations 15:18:40 <Zakim> -gkellogg 15:18:49 <scor_> ... with Ivan and Gregg's parser we meet the minimum requirement for CR 15:18:58 <scor_> ... we have about 6 weeks to get any other ones done 15:19:17 <scor_> ... once we do that, we have to produce a report showing that these parsers pass the test suite 15:19:32 <scor_> ... in RDFa 1.0 we used EARL for the test results. 15:19:42 <scor_> ... I need to regenerate these reports for RDFa 1.1 15:19:55 <scor_> ... anyone has a better suggestion for creating these reports? 15:19:55 <Zakim> +??P60 15:20:02 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P60 15:20:02 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it 15:20:20 <scor_> ... ok, we'll keep it the same for RDFa 1.1 15:21:07 <gkellogg> XMLLiteral tests are always problematic, maybe we could work on those? 15:21:10 <scor_> ... your parser does not have to pass all of the tests. All we need is for at least two parsers to pass each test to demonstrate interoperability. 15:21:49 <niklasl> q+ 15:21:54 <manu1> ack niklasl 15:22:30 <scor_> niklasl: Have you tried using regex for improving the test suite? 15:22:47 <scor_> manu1: the test suite is on github, and you can run it locally 15:23:13 <scor_> manu1: XMLLiteral test can use some improvements, we just didn't have the time last time around. Maybe we can do something about it this time around? 15:23:29 <manu1> Topic: Test Suite Updates 15:23:59 <scor_> manu1: We have test suites for RDFa 1.0 in XHTML and SVGTiny. We have test suits for RDFa 1.1 in XML, XHTML, HTML4, SVGTiny, SVG, HTML5 and XHTML5. 15:24:10 <niklasl> q+ 15:24:11 <manu1> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/ 15:24:19 <manu1> ack niklasl 15:24:32 <scor_> niklasl: do we test the difference in default context at the moment? 15:24:36 <scor_> manu1: In XHTML, yes, in all the other languages, no, I don't think so. 15:25:29 <scor_> gkellogg: we might have some. need to check 15:26:13 <ShaneM> zakim, unmute me 15:26:13 <Zakim> ShaneM should no longer be muted 15:26:17 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about XHTML 15:27:35 <scor_> manu1: an update to the these suite we could do is test for pure HTML5 parsing (non-XML) 15:27:52 <gkellogg> q+ to ask about RDFa 1.1 Lite tests 15:28:16 <scor_> +q to ask about HTML5 parsers from browsers 15:28:21 <ShaneM> q- 15:28:28 <manu1> ack gkellogg 15:28:28 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to ask about RDFa 1.1 Lite tests 15:28:42 <ShaneM> We cannot require XHTML5+RDFa conformance for CR. 15:28:52 <scor_> gkellogg: we don't have any RDFa 1.1 Lite test. not sure how we would verify that something is not RDFa Lite 15:28:56 <niklasl> q+ 15:28:58 <ShaneM> XHTML+RDFa 1.1 is its own language. It is a superset of XHTML 1.1 15:29:24 <ShaneM> we dont do document tests - we do processor tests 15:29:35 <scor_> manu1: RDFa Lite is about document conformance, not processing conformance (which is what the test suite is about) 15:29:45 <manu1> ack scor_ 15:29:48 <Zakim> scor_, you wanted to ask about HTML5 parsers from browsers 15:29:49 <scor_> gkellogg: we don't test what the processor graph outputs 15:31:04 <gkellogg> q+ to mention optional features: vocab entailment 15:31:08 <manu1> ack niklasl 15:31:31 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about xhtml testing and html5 testing 15:31:35 <scor_> niklasl: re. RDFa Lite in test suite: I'd be careful because processors should handle RDFa full 15:31:50 <manu1> ack gkellogg 15:31:50 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to mention optional features: vocab entailment 15:31:59 <manu1> q+ to discuss RDFa 1.1 Lite tests. 15:32:00 <scor_> niklasl: but we could add which of the test documents are RDFa Lite conformant 15:32:11 <scor_> gkellogg: agreed 15:32:40 <scor_> gkellogg: we don't have optional feature support like vocab entailment not happening unless some processor parameter is used 15:32:53 <manu1> ack shaneM 15:32:53 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about xhtml testing and html5 testing 15:33:51 <scor_> ShaneM: we don't care about element reordering wrt to RDFa processing, that's up to the HTML processor which hits the document before the RDFa processor does. 15:34:25 <scor_> manu1: you're technically correct, but not sure this is an acceptable answer in the HTML WG 15:35:15 <manu1> ack manu1 15:35:15 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss RDFa 1.1 Lite tests. 15:35:47 <scor_> manu1: RDFa Lite test - not certain we should have RDFa Lite test. the test suite is for testing processor conformance 15:35:57 <ShaneM> I am opposed to any tests that indicate they are RDFa Lite 1.1. We do not want to encourage people to only test their processors to those. 15:36:07 <ShaneM> since a processor always is required to process full RDFa 15:36:08 <scor_> ... validators are the tools to test document conformance like RDFa Lite 15:36:48 <scor_> gkellogg: it would be useful to identify which documents are conformant to RDFa Lite 15:37:11 <Steven> I agree with Manu, we shouldn't have an RDFa Lite only portion of the test suite. 15:37:16 <scor_> gkellogg: ok 15:38:31 <scor_> manu1: optional features: 1) should we be able to get the processor graph and do queries against it? we do have a bit in the spec in RDFa Core (rdfa graph param in the URL) 15:39:03 <scor_> ... we could have a test for the rdfa processor graph (different test suite) 15:39:44 <scor_> ... do you think that would address your goal? 15:39:55 <scor_> gkellogg: struggling to find in the spec the mention of the url parameter 15:40:10 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#accessing-the-processor-graph 15:40:15 <scor_> gkellogg: not sure we have something like that for vocab entailment? 15:41:13 <scor_> ... section 10.1 talks about how to do entailment 15:41:16 <ShaneM> See sections 7.6.1 and 7.6.2 15:41:22 <scor_> gkellogg: but no web service param is defined there 15:42:14 <scor_> manu1: your processor could do vocab entailment and the test suite would ignore the extra triples when checking the output graph 15:43:06 <scor_> gkellogg: but no url param is defined there 15:44:54 <ShaneM> it IS in the spec 15:44:54 <ShaneM> "Conforming RDFa processors are not required to provide vocabulary expansion.If an RDFa processor provides vocabulary expansion, it must not be performed by default. Instead, the processor must provide an option, vocab_expansion, which, when used, instructs the RDFa processor to perform a vocabulary expansion before returning the output graph." 15:45:53 <ShaneM> we should add clarifying text that this is a URL parameter 15:46:05 <ShaneM> that would NOT be a substantive change. 15:47:00 <scor_> Topic: Implementation Report for Candidate REC 15:47:37 <scor_> manu1: when we come out of LC we have to show we responded to all comments from LC phase 15:48:37 <scor_> manu1: this is mostly paperwork 15:49:30 <scor_> manu1: anyone other than Gregg, Ivan and myself willing to contribute to the test suite? 15:49:33 <niklasl> q+ 15:50:05 <manu1> ack niklasl 15:50:08 <scor_> manu1: everything is on github https://github.com/msporny/rdfa-test-suite 15:50:24 <scor_> niklasl: happy to contribute to the test suite 15:50:54 <scor_> manu1: I propose that we cancel the WG calls during the LC phase so we can focus on the test suite and implementations 15:51:14 <scor_> ... any objections? 15:51:14 <scor_> No objections noted. 15:51:29 <scor_> ... we can do most of the work via the mailing list # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000178