Difference between revisions of "Chatlog 2012-12-06"

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 32: Line 32:
15:03:00 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P24
15:03:00 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P24
15:03:00 <Zakim> sorry, gkellogg, I do not see a party named '??P24'
15:03:00 <Zakim> sorry, gkellogg, I do not see a party named '??P24'
15:03:17 <manu1> zakim ??P24 is gkellogg
15:03:17 <gkellogg> zakim, I'm P24
15:03:17 <gkellogg> zakim, I'm P24
15:03:17 <Zakim> I don't understand 'I'm P24', gkellogg
15:03:17 <Zakim> I don't understand 'I'm P24', gkellogg
Line 39: Line 38:
15:03:50 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:03:50 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:03:59 <Zakim> +??P34
15:03:59 <Zakim> +??P34
15:04:05 <gkellogg> 7zakim, I am ??P34
15:04:10 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P34
15:04:10 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P34
15:04:10 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
15:04:10 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it

Latest revision as of 16:04, 6 December 2012

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

14:45:56 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:45:56 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/12/06-rdfa-irc
14:45:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:45:58 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:46:00 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
14:46:00 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
14:46:01 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
14:46:01 <trackbot> Date: 06 December 2012
14:56:42 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdfa
14:56:45 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa
15:01:07 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
15:01:14 <Zakim> +??P16
15:01:16 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P16
15:01:16 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
15:02:02 <Zakim> +??P24
15:02:02 <Zakim> + +1.540.961.aaaa
15:02:06 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P24
15:02:06 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
15:02:07 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P24
15:02:08 <Zakim> sorry, gkellogg, I do not see a party named '??P24'
15:02:19 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P24
15:02:19 <Zakim> sorry, gkellogg, I do not see a party named '??P24'
15:02:33 <manu1> zakim, I am ?aaaa
15:02:33 <Zakim> sorry, manu1, I do not see a party named '?aaaa'
15:02:42 <Zakim> +ivan
15:02:45 <manu1> zakim, I am 1.540.961.aaaa
15:02:45 <Zakim> sorry, manu1, I do not see a party named '1.540.961.aaaa'
15:02:50 <manu1> zakim, I am +1.540.961.aaaa
15:02:50 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
15:03:00 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P24
15:03:00 <Zakim> sorry, gkellogg, I do not see a party named '??P24'
15:03:17 <gkellogg> zakim, I'm P24
15:03:17 <Zakim> I don't understand 'I'm P24', gkellogg
15:03:22 <Zakim> -manu1
15:03:31 <Zakim> +scor
15:03:50 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:03:59 <Zakim> +??P34
15:04:10 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P34
15:04:10 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
15:04:19 <gkellogg> zakim, who's on the call?
15:04:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see niklasl, ivan, scor, gkellogg
15:05:10 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Dec/0001.html
15:05:25 <niklasl> q+
15:06:28 <scor> scribenick: scor
15:06:51 <manu1> Topic: Discussion about @itemref and Microdata DOM API
15:07:07 <scor> scribe: scor
15:07:07 <scor> Guest: Ted (MacTed) Thibodeau
15:07:27 <scor> niklasl: we talked about the issue about products and product models,
15:07:40 <scor> ... does anyone recall if there was an example from the wild?
15:07:58 <scor> manu1: Martin Hepp said he would send one but hasn't yet
15:08:13 <scor> niklasl: typical example is a t-shirt varying in color and price
15:08:37 <scor> ... would be good to share the item description among all the variants
15:09:06 <scor> ... the effect is to repeat the name and manufacturer statement for each variant
15:09:25 <niklasl> https://github.com/niklasl/rdf-sparql-lab/blob/master/schema.org/tests/expand-model/001-in.html
15:09:32 <niklasl> https://github.com/niklasl/rdf-sparql-lab/blob/master/schema.org/expand-model.rq
15:09:53 <scor> ... we could use model semantics as shown in the links above
15:10:06 <scor> ... this way of modeling data solves the immediate needs
15:10:07 <niklasl> http://d.lib.ncsu.edu/collections/catalog/mc00096-001-ff0155-000-001_0001
15:10:49 <scor> ... this page from the wild is different, you have a landmark depicted by an image, the page also describes a CreativeWork
15:11:07 <scor> ... the image @src is not duplicated for these two types
15:11:20 <scor> thanks for @itemref
15:11:28 <scor> s/thanks for/thanks to
15:11:45 <scor> ... this is a good example of the kind of different ways of using @itemref
15:11:58 <manu1> Discussion on @itemref and Microdata DOM API: https://plus.google.com/u/0/102122664946994504971/posts/Zoq5EiNR9pw
15:11:59 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #rdfa
15:12:01 <ivan> q+
15:12:05 <manu1> q+
15:12:06 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:12:06 <ivan> ack niklasl
15:12:09 <scor> ... it is debatable whether @itemref is required here,
15:12:11 <manu1> ack ivan
15:12:29 <scor> ivan: my reaction is more technical, we did have a discussion 2 weeks ago...
15:12:41 <scor> ... I outlined a way to massage the DOM tree
15:13:08 <scor> ... but all these approaches would require manipulation of the DOM tree and not all implementations could do that
15:13:23 <scor> ... like manu1's for example
15:13:33 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:13:36 <scor> ... that shows that the design in micro data is having the same issue
15:13:50 <niklasl> q+
15:14:21 <scor> ivan: if the streaming issue is not taken seriously, then we should implement it
15:14:23 <manu1> ack manu
15:14:28 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:14:30 <scor> but if it's a serious constraint, we should not do it
15:15:11 <scor> manu1: we haven't seen much use of @itemref in the wild, and the ones we saw were questionable
15:15:28 <scor> ... mostly used to avoid hiding repeated data
15:15:50 <gkellogg> q+
15:15:54 <scor> ... we're searching for an example of @itemref where it is the best way to solve the problem
15:16:05 <scor> ... haven't seen that yet except for the GR use case
15:16:37 <scor> ivan: beyond the usage issue, we have to see if the streaming issue is a concern or not
15:16:54 <scor> ... if it is a general problem, we should not go there, this will cause issues for other implementations
15:17:11 <Zakim> +ShaneM
15:17:13 <scor> manu1: if this is a requirement, implementations will simply do 2 passes
15:17:37 <scor> ivan: I'm surprised that this issue didn't come up in the microdata community
15:17:41 <manu1> ack gkellogg
15:17:43 <manu1> q+
15:17:49 <niklasl> q+
15:18:09 <scor> gkellogg: is there another way to approach this not involving the DOM, but using something like vocab entailment
15:18:23 <scor> q+
15:18:46 <scor> ivan: this is not part of an RDFa processor
15:19:00 <scor> ... not sure how many RDFa processors have entailment support
15:21:04 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #rdfa
15:21:08 <scor> gkellogg: I don't believe that the value of @itemref in MD will go away
15:21:41 <scor> ... we should consider ways to get similar functionality
15:21:58 <scor> ... it's baically the same as micro format include rule
15:23:41 <gkellogg> q+
15:24:04 <scor> ivan: 2 part of the DOM manupilation, markup has to be moved around (duplicated) but other markup has to be remove to avoid generating triples
15:24:42 <scor> manu1: in HTML5 there is no SAX based parsing, so that's why it's not as much of an issue
15:24:47 <manu1> ack manu
15:24:59 <ShaneM> Yes - you cannot do stream-based parsing of HTML5 portably or reliably.
15:25:28 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:25:42 <manu1> q+ to suggest that we try to add this via the RDFa Community Group
15:25:44 <scor> niklasl: the HTML source is mutated (in a copy)
15:25:58 <scor> niklasl: the actual problem I have with @itemref is pretty hard to read
15:27:01 <scor> ... usability team from Google reported that @itemref feature was hard to understand
15:27:11 <niklasl> .. rdfa:prototype
15:27:39 <scor> ... the idea of gkellogg was to use rdfa:prototype, more akin to the javascript model
15:27:50 <ivan> q+
15:28:32 <scor> ... it'd be a simple expansion rule
15:29:02 <niklasl> https://github.com/niklasl/rdf-sparql-lab/blob/master/schema.org/expand-model.rq
15:29:37 <scor> niklasl: if it's not mandatory, it could be done later in the system
15:29:54 <scor> ... it's a way of compacting triples
15:30:03 <scor> ... it does not affect the RDFa syntax at all
15:30:29 <scor> ... another point: the thing referenced by @itemref is not used to produce data
15:30:34 <scor> ... like Ivan said
15:30:43 <manu1> ack scor
15:31:09 <manu1> scor: Remember that they're cases for @itemref that can be covered if you want to share properties.
15:31:25 <manu1> scor: So, in the case of an Event, several events that have the same name, but happening at different dates...
15:31:37 <manu1> scor: You can model this using schema.org's Event just fine.
15:32:23 <manu1> scor: Maybe there could be something in the RDFa syntax, when you reference the subresource, if somehow (perhaps through a new attribute) there is a way to indicate that "these resources should be flattened and glued onto the top resource", maybe that would be helpful?
15:32:31 <niklasl> .. property="rdfa:prototype"
15:32:35 <manu1> scor: Maybe Niklas already covered this.
15:32:46 <manu1> niklasl: Yes, rdfa:prototype would work nicely for that.
15:32:50 <manu1> ack gkellogg
15:33:09 <scor> gkellogg: I like niklasl 's reasoning
15:33:26 <manu1> manu: Yes, I really like the rdfa:prototype mechanism.
15:33:27 <scor> ... we should not blindly copy @itemref, and get to the the use cases it needs to solve
15:34:06 <scor> ... the referenced objects would need to be removed
15:34:09 <manu1> ack manu
15:34:09 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to suggest that we try to add this via the RDFa Community Group
15:34:36 <scor> manu1: I like niklasl's suggestion, because it does not require to change the RDFa syntax
15:35:14 <scor> manu1: ... we could create a CG and work on that. and we could say we have such @itemref feature in RDFa without changing syntax
15:35:16 <scor> q+
15:35:20 <manu1> ack ivan
15:35:34 <scor> manu1: this would not go in the RDFa+HTML spec
15:36:05 <scor> ivan: if I have the referenced object (bunch of predicates), the subject of these predicates is ambiguous, could be the whole document
15:36:21 <scor> ... because these predicates have to be used with other object inside the document
15:36:33 <scor> these predicates could lead to erroneous triples in the output
15:37:10 <scor> ... other comment: reluctant to accept any kind of approach that would change the processing rules that we have
15:37:22 <niklasl> q+
15:37:24 <scor> ... I think niklasl's proposal would require to change the core rules?
15:37:44 <niklasl> .. (it would not require any changes)
15:37:47 <manu1> manu1: I think that Niklas' proposal specifically /does not/ change the core processing rules - that's why I liked it.
15:37:50 <scor> ... I'd like to see the alternatives we have in a more detailed form
15:38:05 <scor> ... my DOM manipulation works
15:38:49 <niklasl> .. (also, the prototype properties would have to have a special subject – referenced by an rdfa:prototype relation (commonly a bnode))
15:39:18 <scor> ... I didn't know there was not streaming in HTML5, so that weakens my argument against @itemref due to streaming issues
15:39:25 <scor> s/not/no
15:39:52 <scor> ... let's see some concrete proposals
15:40:11 <manu1> ack scor
15:40:24 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:40:27 <scor> ... setting up a separate CG might be overkill
15:40:45 <scor> niklasl: no change required in the processing rules
15:40:49 <manu1> manu: A separate CG would deal with the evolution of RDFa... kind of a WHATWG (inside of W3C) for RDFa.
15:41:15 <scor> manu1: moving on...
15:43:35 <scor> ShaneM:  https://github.com/rdfa/rdfa-website
15:45:34 <manu1> Topic: New HTML+RDFa 1.1 Editor's Draft
15:45:42 <scor> manu1: new HTML+RDFa draft out, we should get a few from this group to review it
15:45:45 <manu1> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Dec/0000.html
15:46:36 <scor> ... need to add a warning when overriding a predefined CURIE
15:46:43 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss schedule
15:51:30 <manu1> ack ShaneM
15:51:30 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss schedule
15:52:30 <ShaneM> q+ to ask about role tests (very brief)
15:52:39 <manu1> ack ShaneM
15:52:39 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about role tests (very brief)
15:53:24 <scor> ShaneM: we were requested to add tests for the role attribute, e.g. we're not testing multiple values from the default vocabulary
15:53:50 <scor> ... if no objection I'll add multiple values to some of the tests
15:54:52 <manu1> Topic: Publication of HTML+RDFa 1.1 Working Draft
15:55:42 <scor> s/need to add a warning when overriding a predefined CURIE/need to add a warning when overriding a predefined prefix
15:55:56 <ivan> "No publications between 14 December 2012 and 2 Jan 2013."
15:56:42 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Publish a new heartbeat HTML+RDFa 1.1 Working Draft as soon as possible, with the inclusion of reporting a warning if a prefix is redefined. The proposed publication date is December 13th, 2012.
15:56:46 <gkellogg> +1
15:56:47 <ivan> +1
15:56:49 <niklasl> +1
15:56:49 <manu1> +1
15:56:51 <MacTed> +1
15:56:51 <scor> scor: +1
15:56:53 <ShaneM> +1
15:56:56 <manu1> RESOLVED: Publish a new heartbeat HTML+RDFa 1.1 Working Draft as soon as possible, with the inclusion of reporting a warning if a prefix is redefined. The proposed publication date is December 13th, 2012.
15:57:40 <Zakim> -gkellogg
15:57:40 <Zakim> -ivan
15:57:41 <Zakim> -MacTed
15:57:43 <Zakim> -ShaneM
15:57:44 <Zakim> -niklasl