From RDFa Working Group Wiki
See CommonScribe Control Panel, original RRSAgent log
and preview nicely formatted version.
14:08:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:08:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/17-rdfa-irc
14:08:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:08:50 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
14:08:50 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 52 minutes
14:08:51 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
14:08:51 <trackbot> Date: 17 January 2013
14:27:31 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #rdfa
14:31:56 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdfa
14:58:05 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdfa
14:59:38 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:59:45 <Zakim> +??P29
14:59:51 <manu> zakim, I am ??P29
14:59:52 <Zakim> +manu; got it
15:00:52 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdfa
15:01:21 <Zakim> +??P36
15:01:27 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P36
15:01:28 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
15:02:00 <manu> zakim, code?
15:02:00 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:email@example.com), manu
15:02:17 <Zakim> +scor
15:02:35 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa
15:03:03 <Zakim> +gkellogg
15:03:55 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:05:30 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:05:31 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:05:31 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:06:17 <Zakim> +Shane_McCarron
15:06:18 <manu> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2013Jan/0048.html
15:06:25 <ShaneM> zakim, I am Shane_McCarron
15:06:25 <Zakim> ok, ShaneM, I now associate you with Shane_McCarron
15:06:57 <manu> Manu: Any updates or changes to the agenda?
15:07:07 <ivan> scribenick: ivan
15:09:29 <ivan> scribe: ivan
15:09:27 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-143: Prefixes too complicated
15:09:33 <manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/143
15:09:50 <ivan> manu: we have now asked for feedback from Tab twice
15:09:54 <ivan> … no responses
15:09:59 <ivan> … the WG has been pretty clear about it this over the past several years.
15:10:15 <ivan> … we are going to raise a warning whenever a prefix is overwritten
15:10:29 <ivan> … I think that is all we are going to do on this issue
15:10:31 <ShaneM> any prefix?
15:10:37 <ShaneM> or just an initial context prefix?
15:11:01 <ivan> ivan: any
15:11:03 <ShaneM> thanks
15:11:29 <ivan> manu: whenever you overwrite a prefix a warning is issued
15:11:44 <ivan> … I will add text when the issue is closed
15:12:23 <ivan> Manu: Since we have discussed this issue to death, and since no compelling evidence has been provided to remove the feature, and since all proposals for removing or modifying the feature would break documents in the past or make migrating to new prefixes impossible in the future, the WG has decided to close this issue with a minor modification to the way prefix-overriding is handled in RDFa processors.
15:12:58 <ivan> The WG is satisfied.
15:13:04 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-144: Add @itemref-like attribute
15:13:11 <manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/144
15:13:40 <ivan> manu: Gregg implemented the feature in the document. I changed some of the spec text, people did not like my changes, I reverted to Gregg's version.
15:14:12 <ivan> … when Gregg wrote the feature, there was an assumption of having an object with rdfa:Prototype
15:14:12 <ivan> … and then another part would have a rdfa:ref
15:14:21 <ivan> … it would then 'imports' all the statements of the prototype
15:14:39 <ivan> … there are some rules/pattern matching in the document to define it
15:14:59 <ivan> Manu: I removed the rdfa:Prototype type because I felt it was too meta, harder to understand than @itemref.
15:15:17 <ivan> … but as Niklas said it is actually good if people know that is meta
15:15:35 <ivan> … I also removed the use of bnodes in the examples
15:15:46 <ivan> … we did not need to do that to demonstrate the functionality. The examples now use fragment identifiers instead.
15:16:17 <ivan> Manu: we are reverting things that people had objections to
15:16:24 <ivan> … any other comments?
15:16:32 <ivan> gregg: we should decide the terms we use
15:16:43 <ivan> … rdfa:include or rdfa:ref ?
15:16:55 <ivan> manu: right now I feel that it is a fairly complex feature
15:17:11 <ivan> … the property copying and microdata side by side, the microdata version feels simpler
15:17:45 <ivan> niklasl: what is happening from and abstract point of view?
15:18:00 <ivan> … there is a product and a general part of the product
15:18:21 <ivan> gregg : rfda:ref is useful if one thinks of a prototype being pulled in
15:18:28 <ivan> … include is more what we are doing
15:18:47 <ivan> … but include has an include pattern in microformats, and what we do is very different
15:18:55 <scor> zakim, mute ivan
15:18:56 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
15:19:01 <ivan> … we do not inherit the the types from the calling point
15:19:16 <ivan> manu: I am not sure web developers would really see these different
15:19:23 <ivan> … so include might be o.k. as well
15:19:47 <ivan> … people might look at it with fresh eye
15:20:05 <ivan> gregg: include in, eg, microformats is done on a syntax level
15:20:17 <ivan> manu: clone, copy, import, pull … ?
15:20:48 <ivan> niklasl: I think it is better if it is declarative and not imperative
15:20:58 <ivan> gregg: we are on bike shedding… :-)
15:21:20 <ivan> niklas: are we waiting for feedback? Ie, we cannot be finalize it
15:22:20 <ivan> manu: are there any objection adding this feature?
15:22:49 <ivan> niklas: I am a bit hesitant, sure, it could go in
15:23:22 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
15:23:22 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
15:24:31 <ivan> zakim, mute me
15:24:31 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
15:25:23 <manu> PROPOSAL: Add the Property Copying feature into the HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification as an at-risk feature.
15:25:29 <ivan> ivan: +1
15:25:30 <gkellogg> +1
15:25:31 <manu> +1
15:25:35 <niklasl> +0.75 unless feedback is skeptical/negative (then it shouldn't fly)
15:25:38 <scor> +1
15:25:41 <ivan> q+
15:25:48 <ivan> ack ivan
15:25:49 <manu> ack ivan
15:25:50 <manu> +1
15:27:33 <ShaneM> +1
15:27:25 <manu> RESOLVED: Add the Property Copying feature into the HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification as an at-risk feature.
15:27:02 <gkellogg> ivan: consider rdfa:copy and rdfa:Pattern
15:27:04 <ivan> what about rdfa:pattern, rdfa:Pattern
15:27:42 <ivan> manu: after discussions rdfa:copy and rdfa:Pattern have it
15:27:43 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-145: @content override @value
15:27:53 <ivan> q+
15:27:54 <manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/145
15:27:59 <manu> ack ivan
15:28:36 <gkellogg> q+ @datatype though
15:28:51 <manu> ivan: @value is not used in HTML5 in any meaningful way, the issue isn't @content overriding @value... it's whether to do @value processing at all.
15:28:57 <ivan> ivan: the issue if there is any value processing at all
15:28:58 <manu> ack
15:29:01 <manu> ack @dattype
15:29:12 <manu> ack @dattype, though
15:29:18 <manu> ack @datatype, though
15:29:26 <ivan> gregg: there is a parallel issue on whether @datatype takes precedence over @content
15:29:33 <ivan> gregg: wrong
15:29:40 <manu> q?
15:29:42 <manu> q-
15:29:42 <ivan> gregg: @content takes precedence over @datatype
15:29:51 <ivan> (all): yes
15:29:54 <manu> ack "@datatype, though"
15:30:39 <manu> PROPOSAL: Do not process the @value attribute in HTML+RDFa 1.1.
15:30:41 <manu> +1
15:30:41 <ivan> ivan: +1
15:30:46 <gkellogg> +1
15:30:51 <ShaneM> +1
15:30:59 <scor> +1
15:31:02 <niklasl> +0 I liked the effect of picking it up from <input> but I cannot argue for it with evidence of its need....
15:31:08 <manu> RESOLVED: Do not process the @value attribute in HTML+RDFa 1.1.
15:31:42 <manu> PROPOSAL: @content overrides @datetime when found on the same element.
15:31:47 <ivan> ivan: +1
15:31:48 <ShaneM> +1
15:31:49 <manu> +1
15:31:54 <gkellogg> +1
15:31:59 <niklasl> +1
15:32:19 <scor> +1
15:32:20 <manu> RESOLVED: @content overrides @datetime when found on the same element.
15:32:40 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-146: HTML5+RDFa needs rule for implied @about="" on head/body
15:32:42 <manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/146
15:33:11 <ivan> manu: we had a discussion whether html+rdfa for a implied about on head/body
15:33:22 <ivan> … we resolved not to do that in rdfa 1.1
15:33:27 <manu> the discussion is here: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/117
15:33:28 <ivan> zakim, mute me
15:33:28 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
15:33:34 <gkellogg> q+
15:34:12 <ivan> Manu: the reason we impled @about was because the use case was a corner case
15:34:12 <ivan> … we were making the processing rules more complicated for a corner case use case
15:34:31 <ivan> … the root element has the url of the document as an @about for any xml element
15:34:39 <ivan> … we could then remove it from head and body
15:34:57 <niklasl> .. (or empty @resource (in Lite))
15:34:58 <ivan> … caveat is that the @typeof alone would generate a bnode
15:35:02 <manu> ack gkellogg
15:35:09 <ivan> gregg: my memory is different
15:35:16 <ivan> .. we had a rule for 1.0
15:35:37 <ivan> … the problem was that if somebody set a different base, and this would be overritten by that
15:36:00 <ivan> … we therefore used the special rule referring the parent object for the resource
15:36:07 <ivan> … and what we decided to do
15:36:17 <ivan> … that is the language in xhtml+rdfa 1.1
15:36:21 <ivan> q+
15:36:28 <ivan> ack @datatype
15:36:31 <ivan> ack though
15:37:05 <ivan> ShaneM: there is nothing in the general rule set
15:37:24 <ivan> gregg: the difference here was to use the parent object
15:37:34 <ivan> … that was what the group intended
15:37:42 <manu> ack ivan
15:37:43 <ivan> ack ivan
15:39:03 <ShaneM> q+ to disagree about process with regard to XHTML+RDFa
15:40:05 <ivan> ack ShaneM
15:40:13 <manu> ack Shane_McCarron
15:40:13 <Zakim> Shane_McCarron, you wanted to disagree about process with regard to XHTML+RDFa
15:41:40 <ivan> manu: it seems that the sentiment is to adopt the language from xhtml+rdfa
15:41:58 <tinkster> tinkster has joined #rdfa
15:44:29 <manu> PROPOSAL: Add text matching XHTML+RDFa 1.1 for special processing of HEAD and BODY into the HTML+RDFa 1.1 spec.
15:44:31 <ivan> ivan: +1
15:44:32 <manu> +1
15:44:34 <niklasl> +1 for consistency with XHTML 1.1 (I prefer just adding an explicit @resource along with the @typeof)
15:44:39 <gkellogg> +1
15:44:50 <scor> +1
15:45:02 <ShaneM> +1
15:45:05 <manu> RESOLVED: Add text matching XHTML+RDFa 1.1 for special processing of HEAD and BODY into the HTML+RDFa 1.1 spec.
15:45:50 <ivan> manu: we are hopefully done with all of the issues!
15:45:58 <ivan> … we can have a telcon next week
15:46:12 <ivan> ... any other issues we have to resolve before last call?
15:46:22 <ivan> No other issues.
15:47:37 <ivan> … I will prepare the HTML+RDFa 1.1 Last Call document this weekend, then.
15:47:49 <ivan> …. hopefully people can read it before next Thursday.
15:47:55 <ivan> … we will do a poll to take it to Last Call by email, over the mailing list.
15:48:46 <manu> Topic: PER for RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa 1.1
15:49:17 <manu> shanem: Are there any PER dependencies for the HTML+RDFa 1.1 spec?
15:49:22 <manu> manu: No, I don't think so.
15:49:35 <manu> ivan: We should do the PERs later.
15:50:02 <manu> ivan: We should do the PRs and PERs together.
15:50:58 <Zakim> -Ivan
15:51:00 <Zakim> -gkellogg
15:51:00 <Zakim> -Shane_McCarron
15:51:02 <Zakim> -manu
15:51:04 <Zakim> -niklasl
15:51:09 <Zakim> -scor
15:51:10 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
15:51:10 <Zakim> Attendees were manu, niklasl, scor, gkellogg, Ivan, Shane_McCarron
15:51:19 <niklasl> niklasl has left #rdfa
15:52:31 <manu> rrsagent, make logs public
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000212