See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 11 March 2010
<ivan> hey manu
<manu> Hi Ivan :)
<ivan> I cannot really change the header of the working group mailing list, I would have to go to systeam for that
<ivan> that is the problem; it should have been done when setting up the list
<ivan> my mistake
<ivan> I did change the one of the public list
<ivan> is it worth going through that hassle? Let us wait until somebody else gets to the same problem...
<ivan> remember our discussion on how to set up the lists? :-)
<manu> I can contact the system team if you'd like with text that would correct the issue?
<ivan> I can do that, if you give me a text...
<Benjamin> hi everybody
<Knud> now I'm mute. :)
<tinkster> I will probably have to send regrets for next two weeks then.
<tinkster> I don't mind doing it.
<scribe> Scribe: Steven
Note that the call is one hour earlier for Europeans next week and the week after
Manu: Action 5 for Ivan?
... mark as done?
<trackbot> ACTION-5 -- Mark Birbeck to generate spec text for pulling in external vocabulary documents -- due 2010-03-18 -- OPEN
Ivan: the discussion is still ongoing
<manu> trackbot, close ACTION-5
<trackbot> ACTION-5 Generate spec text for pulling in external vocabulary documents closed
<manu> trackbot, comment ACTION-5 Ivan produced a merged specification explaining how to pull in external vocabulary documents.
<trackbot> ACTION-5 Generate spec text for pulling in external vocabulary documents notes added
Manu: URL for that Ivan?
Ivan: Just a moment, watch the IRC
Manu: I will fix the descriptions of the list
<manu> The things that we may have consensus on:
<manu> * RDFa profiles are specified in an external document (profile document)
<manu> * We should use the @profile attribute to specify the profile document
<manu> * The @profile attribute can be placed on any element and is scoped
<manu> to the element on which it is defined and its children
<manu> * The profile document is marked up in RDFa, using a vocabulary
<manu> designed to modify the behavior of the RDFa Processor
<manu> * The default profile document can be specified in the RDFa Core spec.
<manu> This document will outline what prefixes and tokens are pre-defined
<manu> * The profile document can specify tokens and prefixes
<manu> * One does not use xmlns: to declare prefixes and tokens
<tinkster> ... but that <head profile> applies to *whole* document.
Ivan: I'm not sure all of these
do have consensus
... such as the xmlns one
Manu: I thought there was opposition to the JSON method, so then there was one proposal left
Ivan: There are two issues
... whether we use an RDF vocabulary for prefixes and tokens, and then how we serialise
... I thought Mark was not in favour of the first bit
... though I and Ben are
Manu: So the last bullet point
and what Ivan has just said are dependent on each other
... Mark said we should be able to use xmlns for prefixes and tokens
Ivan: You are right
... I am against that as well
Manu: There was a problem of
leakage of prefixes into the authors document
... we may have consensus on the RDFa as profile bit
... we may want dc and foaf in the predefined prefixes
... we would do that by saying if there is no profile specified then use this one by default
<manu> Steven: Do we really need to have a default profile?
Manu: we wanted to have a default case that was available without using profile
<tinkster> Would the default profile apply to XHTML+RDFa 1.1? or RDFa Core 1.1?
Steven: What is the advantage over saying that the defaults are always there?
Manu: There are two
possibilities: overlaying your profile over the default
... or replacing the default with your profile
<tinkster> Other host languages might prefer different default profiles.
Manu: Answering Toby's question
... Does ODF have a viewpoint on this?
Rob: Not really
Manu: I would expect ODF to want a different set of defaults
Rob: The vocabs we are seeing in ODF1.2 are about embedded vcards, events etc; no FOAF
Ivan: My proposal is we should
postpone this discussion
... we don't know what a profile doc will contain
... so the default issue is premature
Steven: For ODF there is no real problem with always having an explicit @profile, since the authoring arguments don't apply
Manu: If we want the concept of a default profile we need to be able to support prefixes in a profile document
Ivan: I think the list if
... I'm not sure if we have consensus about dropping JSON
Manu: There are security
implications associated with it, and CORS will solve it, and so
will the RDFa API
... and we don't want to mark up in two different ways
Ivan: What does Toby think?
Toby: The format should be RDF of
... in any serialisation, but only RDFa is the only required one
Steven: I think it is the wrong way round - there is no consensus on *adding* JSON
Shane: I agree strongly
<manu> The things that we still have to discuss:
Manu: I would still like to hear Mark; he will have to fight hard though
<manu> * What happens when you can't dereference the profile document? (Toby's proposal)
<manu> * Are we limiting next/prev/index/license/etc to @rel/@rev or allowing them everywhere?
<manu> * What is the mental model are tokens/prefixes two different concepts in RDFa or are they the same thing?
<manu> * Are there backwards compatibility issues with the proposed path forward?
Ivan: I agree with Toby
... RDFa is the only required serialization
<ShaneM> Me too
Manu: Mark seems to be concerned
with the relation between token and prefix
... and there are backward compatibility issues
... Any other issues?
... how will we decide?
... We have already had two versions of this document
... I would like to see a feeling for which direction
... we have to move on
<manu> Steven: There is no immediate hurry to move forward - we may want to let this stuff sink in for a while.
Manu: A lot of the decisions are
interrelated, and that's why I would like a bit more time to
hold back on making a firm decision
... I think we should point to the latest document, and then work with that
Ivan: The decision on the restriction of tokens to @rel @rev is important
<tinkster> Another possibility is allowing profiles to define keywords that only apply to particular attributes.
Manu: Anyone object to allowing all tokens everywhere?
<tinkster> e.g. typeof="Person"
Ivan: Then the management of keywords and prefixes becomes very different
Shane: For an implementation?
... why is an API needed?
... I looked at the code of some of the libraries
... and how could an API help to reduce them
... conclusion - most of the code is for HTML attributes
... and so an API could help
... developers have to use some form of recursion
... an API may help that
Benjamin: I looked at Operator for Firefox
Benjamin: RDFa DOM API may help
for that sort of app
... an API can hide the difference between URIs and CURIEs
... and external definitions in profiles
Manu: Are we focussing on RDFa
parser developers, or web page developers?
... I think the latter
<tinkster> Certainly, to help page authors. The parser would be built into the browser.
<Knud> I think the latter
<manu> ack [IP
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about audience
<tinkster> DocA loads DocB in an iframe, and extracts triples from DocB.
<Knud> useful for mashups?
Shane: Who is our audience for this?
Manu: App writers, crawlers
<tinkster> Also GreaseMonkey/Opera User Scripts...
Manu: extracting the triples
Shane: So native in a browser, or a library?
Benjamin: If we have an API, we don't need RDFa parsers anymore?
<tinkster> The parser powers the API.
Shane: At least on the client side
Ivan: So my distiller will still be used.
<tinkster> Even though we have XML DOM, we still need XML parsers!
Manu: We want to make it easier for web developers to use
Benjamin: So the real focus is to
extract RDF triples
... and it should be possible to query
... add triples, and remove them
... those last two may be optional
<manu> ack [IP
<Zakim> [IPcaller], you wanted to discuss add/removal of RDF triples
<ivan> +1 to the current order
Manu: Not sure about 2, and against 3 and 4
<tinkster> #3 is hard; #4 is easy but not especially useful without #3.
Manu: at least in the first
... maybe we can build it up by stages
<ShaneM> I agree with Toby - you would need a CSS selector-like query interface... SPARQL in the browser
Manu: It would be difficult to do 3 and 4
Ivan: I think 1 and 2 should be the focus for now
Benjamin: We need to define the cut between the RDFa DOM API and the triplestore API
Manu: Big unanswered question
Ivan: Toby collected some APIs as examples
Ivan: but what a triplestore API
can do in a browser is unclear at the moment
... it is right to divide them
<Zakim> Manu, you wanted to discuss how this hooks into ODF and SVG
Ivan: for the time being, treat as separate
<ShaneM> +1 to permitting extracted triples to be put into a local triple store
Manu: We may want to decide if
there are triggers that require the one API to use the
... safety and privacy issues need attention
... shouldn't focus on the triplestore API
... we may want to see how the DOM API matches the SVG DOM API
... and there's ODF as well
Rob: No standardised DOM representation as of now
Manu: We should watch that
... and talk to Doug Schepers too
Ivan: I have used the SVG DOM, I
don't foresee a problem
... it is a read-only API
... only if we start adding and removing triples do I see a problem
<Zakim> Benjamin, you wanted to talk about the first sketch at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/RDFa-DOM-API
Benjamin: Just to mention the first version
<ShaneM> Do we envision this is a 'live' list that is updated as there are mutation events, or a static list that must be updated by the developer as needed?
Benjamin: we should play with
... try it out
Ivan: Looking at the microdata
API would be a good comparison
... try to keep them similar
<tinkster> IIRC microdata API is quite resource-based, whereas current RDFa suggestion quite triple-based.
<Zakim> Manu, you wanted to end the meeting.
Ivan: Don't forget the time changes
Steven: Ivan and I can't make the call in two week's time, because of the W3C AC meeting
<tinkster> bye all!
Ivan: And I will miss the call after that as well
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/lll/ll/ Succeeded: s/profile/default profile/ Succeeded: s/TH/Th/ Succeeded: s/tire/ture/ Succeeded: s/FO/Fo/ Succeeded: s/iule/ile/ Succeeded: s/TH/Th/ Succeeded: s/TO/To/ Succeeded: s/FO/Fo/ Succeeded: s/Shahe/Shane/ Succeeded: s/ws/s/ Succeeded: s/../.../ Succeeded: s/pagf/pag/ Succeeded: s/WH/Wh/ Found Scribe: Steven Inferring ScribeNick: Steven Default Present: ShaneM, [IPcaller], Ivan, Benjamin, Knud, Steven, tinkster, RobW, Manu Present: ShaneM [IPcaller] Ivan Benjamin Knud Steven tinkster RobW Manu Regrets: MarkB Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Mar/0059 Found Date: 11 Mar 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/03/11-rdfa-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]