IRC log of rdfa on 2010-04-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:50:28 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:50:28 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:50:33 [manu]
trackbot, setup meeting
13:50:33 [trackbot]
Sorry, manu, I don't understand 'trackbot, setup meeting'. Please refer to for help
13:50:43 [manu]
trackbot, start meeting
13:50:46 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
13:50:48 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 7332
13:50:48 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
13:50:49 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
13:50:49 [trackbot]
Date: 15 April 2010
13:51:35 [manu]
Present: Ivan, Steven, MarkB, Benjamin
13:51:41 [manu]
Regrets: BenA
13:51:43 [manu]
Chair: Manu
13:52:12 [manu]
rrsagent, make logs public
13:53:24 [markbirbeck]
markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
13:55:34 [manu]
Regrets+ Toby
13:58:54 [Zakim]
SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
13:59:01 [Zakim]
13:59:38 [Zakim]
13:59:48 [manu]
zakim, I am ??P9
13:59:48 [Zakim]
+manu; got it
14:00:17 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:00:17 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:00:18 [Zakim]
14:00:37 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has joined #rdfa
14:01:15 [markbirbeck]
zakim, code?
14:01:16 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck
14:01:27 [Knud]
Knud has joined #rdfa
14:01:49 [Zakim]
14:01:56 [Zakim]
14:02:21 [Steven]
zakim, dial steven-617
14:02:21 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
14:02:22 [Zakim]
14:02:49 [ShaneM]
zakim is being stupid
14:03:10 [markbirbeck]
zakim, be nice to ShaneM
14:03:10 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'be nice to ShaneM', markbirbeck
14:03:15 [manu]
14:03:16 [markbirbeck]
thought so
14:03:31 [Zakim]
14:04:08 [manu]
scribenick: ivan
14:04:42 [ivan]
Topic: Admin issues
14:04:56 [ivan]
manu: a couple of resolutions should be on records,
14:05:02 [ivan]
... get the issues closed
14:05:12 [ivan]
... and have a resolution on getting fpwd-s
14:05:27 [manu]
14:05:28 [ivan]
manu: we had a poll that we did not record
14:05:41 [Knud]
zakim, mute me
14:05:41 [Zakim]
knud should now be muted
14:05:44 [ivan]
manu: this covered the four items that had a wide agreement
14:05:53 [ivan]
... first: supporting of @profiles
14:06:13 [ivan]
... looking at it there were 2 against, we covered their reasons
14:06:21 [ivan]
... we should not rehash that
14:06:36 [manu]
PROPOSAL: Support the general concept of RDFa Profiles - an external document that specifies keywords for CURIEs.
14:07:29 [ivan]
14:07:38 [manu]
14:07:38 [Benjamin]
14:07:41 [Knud]
14:07:47 [Steven]
14:07:50 [markbirbeck]
14:07:56 [Steven]
This is not a vote
14:07:57 [ShaneM]
14:08:09 [manu]
RESOLVED: Support the general concept of RDFa Profiles - an external document that specifies keywords for CURIEs.
14:08:38 [manu]
PROPOSAL: Support the concept of having a default prefix mechanism without RDFS resolution.
14:08:41 [ivan]
14:08:50 [manu]
14:08:50 [Benjamin]
14:08:51 [Knud]
14:08:55 [Steven]
14:08:59 [markbirbeck]
14:09:16 [ShaneM]
14:09:26 [manu]
RESOLVED: Support the concept of having a default prefix mechanism without RDFS resolution.
14:10:09 [manu]
PROPOSAL: Support expressing the RDFa Profile document in RDFa (for example: rdfa:prefix/rdfa:keyword, or rdfa:alias)
14:10:16 [ivan]
14:10:18 [Steven]
14:10:19 [manu]
14:10:23 [Benjamin]
14:10:32 [Knud]
14:11:12 [ShaneM]
14:11:13 [markbirbeck]
14:12:19 [ivan]
steven: mark, do you oppose it
14:12:37 [ivan]
mark: if 'one of the possible mechanism would be rdfa'
14:12:49 [ivan]
... I think we can still have that discussion
14:13:10 [ivan]
manu: we had a bit of discussions with that wording and we had a general discussion based on that
14:13:25 [manu]
RESOLVED: Support expressing the RDFa Profile document in RDFa (for example: rdfa:prefix/rdfa:keyword, or rdfa:alias)
14:13:32 [ivan]
... looking at the proposal and the +1-s I would resolve it and we can have a discussion at a later stage
14:14:12 [manu]
PROPOSAL: Provide an alternate mechanism to express mappings that does not depend on xmlns: (for example: @token, @vocab or @map)
14:14:20 [ivan]
14:14:25 [manu]
14:14:26 [Benjamin]
14:14:29 [Knud]
14:14:32 [Steven]
14:14:32 [markbirbeck]
14:14:50 [ivan]
ivan: same question to steven... does he oppose or can live with it?
14:15:18 [ivan]
steven: I was not sure whether I should say -1 or 0, an alternate means 'as well as'
14:15:27 [ShaneM]
14:15:27 [ivan]
manu: this is really for languages without xmlns:
14:15:52 [ivan]
... and html5 is debatable, but the html wg folks are claiming so
14:16:03 [ivan]
... the vast majority of our arguments revolved around that
14:16:14 [ivan]
... let us assume that there are languages that do not have xmlns:
14:16:20 [ivan]
... for them this makes it easier
14:16:21 [ShaneM]
Moreover using xmlns pollutes the namespaces of a parser unnecessarily.
14:16:40 [ivan]
Steven: I do not agree that html5 does not fall into this category
14:16:43 [ivan]
14:16:48 [manu]
ack ivan
14:17:58 [manu]
RESOLVED: Provide an alternate mechanism to express mappings that does not depend on xmlns: (for example: @token, @vocab or @map)
14:18:12 [ivan]
ivan: what about deprecating xmlns?
14:18:19 [manu]
Topic: xmlns: deprecation in RDFa 1.1
14:18:21 [ivan]
... it is in the current version of the rdfa core
14:18:42 [manu]
+1 for deprecation of xmlns:
14:18:49 [Steven]
-1 for deprecation
14:18:50 [manu]
Ivan: I can live with deprecation of xmlns:
14:19:08 [manu]
Ivan: we need a resolution for this
14:19:16 [ivan]
shane: I did off-line doing this unilateraly
14:19:32 [ivan]
... I agree that this should be accepted by the wg
14:19:38 [ivan]
... having two is confusing
14:19:53 [ivan]
manu: the reason I thought we would be going
14:20:02 [ivan]
... the issue is confusing having two of them
14:20:09 [ivan]
... we had that discussion before
14:20:10 [Steven]
I disagree more strongly on this one than the last
14:20:20 [ivan]
... we probably would have done differently
14:20:30 [ivan]
steven: I am against deprecating it
14:20:30 [markbirbeck]
14:20:44 [ivan]
... I do not like breaking backward compatibility
14:20:48 [ivan]
manu: it does not
14:21:01 [ivan]
... deprecation means a strong a signal not to use
14:21:15 [ivan]
shane: technically it means it is not removed yet but it can be
14:21:31 [manu]
ack mark
14:21:36 [ivan]
... steven, if it said 'prefix is preferred, is that fine'?
14:21:38 [ivan]
steven: yes
14:21:46 [ivan]
mark: that means there is a decision to remove it
14:21:56 [ivan]
... we have to send a strong signal
14:22:48 [ivan]
... I do not agree that we would have done it differently
14:23:01 [manu]
q+ to clarify "we'd do it differently"
14:23:10 [ivan]
... at the time we used what w3c had an emphasis on at the time
14:23:20 [ShaneM]
+1 to marks concern
14:23:54 [ivan]
ack manu
14:23:54 [Zakim]
manu, you wanted to clarify "we'd do it differently"
14:23:54 [Steven]
+1 to Mark
14:24:59 [Knud]
"xmlns is discouraged"?
14:25:00 [manu]
is my audio breaking up?
14:25:09 [markbirbeck]
+1 to Knud
14:25:43 [ivan]
PROPOSED: the FPWD should say something like "prefix is preferred" but not explicitly deprecate xmlns
14:25:46 [Zakim]
14:25:47 [Zakim]
14:26:06 [ivan]
PROPOSAL: the FPWD should say something like "prefix is preferred" but not explicitly deprecate xmlns
14:26:20 [ShaneM]
14:26:21 [manu]
14:26:22 [ivan]
14:26:28 [Knud]
14:26:31 [Benjamin]
14:26:31 [Steven]
I can live with that
14:28:31 [markbirbeck]
14:29:52 [manu]
PROPOSAL: Remove mention of "xmlns: is deprecated" from the RDFa Core 1.1 FPWD
14:30:08 [manu]
14:30:08 [ivan]
14:30:10 [markbirbeck]
14:30:23 [Knud]
14:30:23 [Benjamin]
14:30:24 [Steven]
14:30:29 [ivan]
RESOLVED: Remove mention of "xmlns: is deprecated" from the RDFa Core 1.1 FPWD
14:30:35 [ShaneM]
14:31:03 [manu]
Topic: Resolve to publish RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 FPWD
14:31:16 [ivan]
manu: shane, an overview?
14:31:46 [ivan]
shane: as far as can see, modulo pubrules, the document is in agreement with the resolutions of the group
14:31:56 [ivan]
... fpwd does not have to be perfect
14:32:17 [ivan]
... xhtml did not have the same review than core, but that is all right, there is nothing there:-)
14:32:26 [ivan]
... i have concerns about the core
14:32:42 [ivan]
... as soon as we put it out to the public, we will have the public reacting
14:32:55 [ShaneM]
14:33:11 [ShaneM]
14:33:20 [ShaneM]
14:33:25 [ivan]
14:33:34 [manu]
ack ivan
14:34:08 [manu]
PROPOSAL: Publish RDFa Core 1.1 as First Public Working Draft
14:34:53 [manu]
Ivan: Are we going to publish RDFa DOM API now as well?
14:35:37 [manu]
Ivan: I think people might misunderstand that publishing RDFa DOM API at a later date as something negative.
14:35:46 [manu]
q+ to discuss RDFa DOM API publication
14:35:50 [markbirbeck]
14:36:19 [manu]
Ivan: I'm concerned that people may think we're not concerned about the RDFa DOM API
14:36:23 [manu]
ack markbirbeck
14:36:30 [ivan]
mark: I can understand where you get Ivan
14:36:33 [ivan]
... but I disagree
14:36:52 [ivan]
...the audience to this spec is very different
14:37:12 [ivan]
.. my feeling is that the rdfa core and the xhtml will go unnoticed
14:37:21 [ivan]
... but the rdfa itself is the story
14:37:30 [ivan]
... however the dom api is a different audience
14:37:41 [ivan]
... we really think we should aim at the html authors
14:37:42 [ivan]
14:37:46 [manu]
ack manu
14:37:46 [Zakim]
manu, you wanted to discuss RDFa DOM API publication
14:37:51 [ivan]
manu: I agree with mark
14:38:13 [ivan]
... i do not want us to get into mind set where we think that the different specs that are not tied together
14:38:23 [ivan]
... we should not create a binding among them
14:38:33 [ivan]
... suppose we get all of ivan's fears
14:38:41 [ivan]
... we have to have to courage to take the heat
14:38:54 [ivan]
... we are not talking about pushing the dom api by a couple of week
14:39:05 [markbirbeck]
s/that are not tied/are tied/
14:39:07 [ivan]
... if those weeks end up with nasty remarks
14:39:19 [ivan]
... we will publish the api document soon enough
14:39:22 [manu]
ack ivan
14:40:07 [Knud]
s/by a couple of weeks/by a couple of months
14:40:15 [markbirbeck]
Fair point Ivan. I was bending the stick too far. :)
14:41:16 [Zakim]
14:41:21 [Knud]
14:41:35 [manu]
Ivan: I hope I'm being paranoid - and I wouldn't object to FPWD.
14:41:44 [ivan]
s/by couple of months/by a couple of weeks/
14:41:51 [markbirbeck]
@Knud: We're only editing the record, not people's opinions!
14:41:52 [manu]
Ivan: I think these are the same audiences - we've changed some pretty major stuff.
14:42:10 [Zakim]
14:42:16 [manu]
PROPOSAL: Publish RDFa Core 1.1 as First Public Working Draft
14:43:05 [manu]
14:43:05 [ivan]
14:43:06 [markbirbeck]
14:43:07 [Benjamin]
14:43:10 [Knud]
14:43:11 [ShaneM]
14:43:11 [markbirbeck]
14:43:22 [Steven]
14:43:36 [manu]
RESOLVED: Publish RDFa Core 1.1 as First Public Working Draft
14:44:00 [manu]
PROPOSAL: Publish XHTML+RDFa 1.1 as First Public Working Draft
14:44:04 [manu]
14:44:04 [Steven]
14:44:06 [Benjamin]
14:44:07 [markbirbeck]
14:44:09 [Knud]
14:44:13 [ivan]
+0.5 (just to be consistent)
14:44:23 [markbirbeck]
I was wondering what you'd do. :)
14:44:24 [ShaneM]
14:44:29 [manu]
RESOLVED: Publish XHTML+RDFa 1.1 as First Public Working Draft
14:46:45 [ivan]
clap clap clap
14:46:50 [ivan]
14:46:52 [ivan]
14:46:56 [markbirbeck]
Nice work Shane!
14:47:08 [ivan]
topic: rdfa dom api
14:47:25 [ivan]
manu: I have not put the api on the focus on the agendas
14:47:35 [ivan]
... we are not prepared to publish already
14:47:48 [ivan]
... mark and and I had discussion on how to improve
14:47:54 [markbirbeck]
q+ To apologise for causing delay on DOM API.
14:48:02 [ivan]
... what we want to do is to focus solely on the dom api for the coming 2 weeks
14:48:21 [Benjamin]
Current version of the RDFa DOM API document:
14:48:29 [ivan]
mark: apologize for causing delay, I was away with no internet connection...
14:48:44 [Benjamin]
And the latest version of the Javascript prototype:
14:48:55 [ivan]
... the key issue I am trying to push this towards
14:49:18 [ivan]
... we should give people an api to select the elements of the dom that resulted in a triple in the triple store
14:49:32 [ivan]
... I put something up today for us to discuss
14:49:47 [ivan]
manu: the concern I had is that I cannot implement that in ff using the parser
14:50:04 [ivan]
... i know we are talking about an rdfa api
14:50:22 [ivan]
... but it will be very difficult to implement that for implementers
14:50:31 [ivan]
... i do not know how to implement that in c and c++
14:50:38 [ivan]
mark: i think it is pretty easy
14:50:46 [ivan]
manu: i should see some code
14:50:58 [ivan]
... if we cannot implement it in the c and c++ then it is easy
14:51:11 [ivan]
mark: this raises the question what we want to achieve with this api
14:51:26 [ivan]
... just querying triples is not really useful
14:51:54 [ivan]
manu: that is not what i mean; if we want people to write ff extensions that modify the dom and give them an extra methods
14:52:12 [ivan]
... this is usually done is c and c++, mainly with @profile means this is the way to be done
14:52:34 [ivan]
... I do not think you can do it in pure javascript
14:52:41 [ivan]
... i do not care about, say, redland
14:52:57 [ivan]
... it is the restrictions of ff and chrome that puts on developers
14:53:15 [ivan]
mark: if we want to do something for the browser we have to see what is useful
14:53:18 [manu]
+1 to what Mark just said.
14:53:28 [ivan]
... we may need an additional thing in the api
14:53:44 [ivan]
... maybe we need some events that get passed
14:53:54 [ivan]
... we have to try to solve this rather than drop it
14:54:30 [ivan]
manu: with that said, do you have examples of extending the Document object in FF not using javascript and not something else>?
14:55:02 [ivan]
markbirbeck: we had all kinds of things experimented with in our xforms work, there are lots of stuffs we are looking at
14:55:18 [ivan]
manu: are you opposed getting just triples in javascript?
14:55:44 [ivan]
markbirbeck: i do not have a problem with some kind of layering
14:55:55 [ivan]
... eg in sparql you have the notion of projection
14:56:08 [ivan]
... the result is the set of results with all kinds of properties
14:56:16 [ivan]
... you get back objects
14:56:32 [ivan]
... that is natural for js programmers
14:56:34 [ivan]
14:56:37 [Benjamin]
The current API version may be easily extended to query DOM nodes with certain RDFa content.
14:56:37 [ivan]
ack markbirbeck
14:56:37 [Zakim]
markbirbeck, you wanted to apologise for causing delay on DOM API.
14:56:38 [manu]
ack mark
14:57:07 [ivan]
markbirbeck: i have not looked at other languages, we may have a language specific holes where objects can be used
14:57:22 [ivan]
... and languages should fill that in
14:57:36 [ivan]
... but all objects have a pointer at that element where the triple comes from
14:57:59 [Benjamin]
14:58:23 [ivan]
... we get both the semantics and the element that produced that
14:58:26 [manu]
ack ivan
14:59:38 [manu]
q+ to discuss triples-as-objects
14:59:41 [Benjamin]
-1 to Ivans proposal
14:59:48 [manu]
ack benjamin
15:00:04 [manu]
Ivan: We don't have to provide a full implementation when doing FPWD
15:00:13 [ivan]
Benjamin: when you look at the document you can see that you cannot publish it
15:00:26 [ivan]
... I think we should reach a concensus about the general style of the document
15:00:49 [ivan]
... we should get a feeling for what the api would look like
15:00:51 [manu]
15:00:55 [manu]
q+ to end the telecon
15:01:04 [ivan]
... add mark's proposal to this and see how it works together
15:01:10 [ShaneM]
Remember that published documents have their own momentum... Once it starts rolling in a certain direction it is hard to change. The faster it rolls the harder it is to redirect.
15:01:40 [ivan]
manu: mark, what would help us most is to give us examples
15:01:47 [ivan]
... see how we can have this happen
15:01:53 [ivan]
meeting adjurned
15:02:10 [Zakim]
15:02:12 [Zakim]
15:02:14 [Zakim]
15:02:20 [Zakim]
15:02:31 [Knud]
+1 to what Shane just said
15:02:50 [markbirbeck]
15:03:00 [markbirbeck]
(I'm using up the bits that Ivan didn't use. :))
15:03:16 [manu]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:03:39 [ShaneM]
15:04:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see manu, Ivan, ShaneM
15:06:04 [ivan]
zakim, drop me
15:06:13 [Zakim]
Ivan is being disconnected
15:06:15 [Zakim]
15:06:17 [Zakim]
15:06:19 [Zakim]
SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
15:06:23 [Zakim]
Attendees were Benjamin, manu, Ivan, knud, markbirbeck, Steven, ShaneM
15:07:22 [manu]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:07:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate manu
15:10:38 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has left #rdfa
16:39:41 [manu]
rrsagent, bye
16:39:41 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
16:39:43 [manu]
zakim, bye