13:50:28 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:50:28 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-rdfa-irc
13:50:33 <manu> trackbot, setup meeting
13:50:33 <trackbot> Sorry, manu, I don't understand 'trackbot, setup meeting'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc 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> +Benjamin
13:59:38 <Zakim> +??P9
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> +Ivan
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:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck
14:01:27 <Knud> Knud has joined #rdfa
14:01:49 <Zakim> +knud
14:01:56 <Zakim> +markbirbeck
14:02:21 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
14:02:21 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
14:02:22 <Zakim> +Steven
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> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Apr/0062.html
14:03:16 <markbirbeck> thought so
14:03:31 <Zakim> +ShaneM
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> http://www.doodle.com/uqe9pxru7eu8n7d8
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> +1
14:07:38 <manu> +1
14:07:38 <Benjamin> +1
14:07:41 <Knud> +1
14:07:47 <Steven> +1
14:07:50 <markbirbeck> +1
14:07:56 <Steven> This is not a vote
14:07:57 <ShaneM> +1
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> +1
14:08:50 <manu> +1
14:08:50 <Benjamin> +1
14:08:51 <Knud> +1
14:08:55 <Steven> +1
14:08:59 <markbirbeck> +1
14:09:16 <ShaneM> +1
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> +1
14:10:18 <Steven> +1
14:10:19 <manu> +1
14:10:23 <Benjamin> +1
14:10:32 <Knud> +1
14:11:12 <ShaneM> +1
14:11:13 <markbirbeck> -1
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> +1
14:14:25 <manu> +1
14:14:26 <Benjamin> +1
14:14:29 <Knud> +1
14:14:32 <Steven> -1
14:14:32 <markbirbeck> +1
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> +1
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> q+
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> q+
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> -ShaneM
14:25:47 <Zakim> +ShaneM
14:26:06 <ivan> PROPOSAL: the FPWD should say something like "prefix is preferred" but not explicitly deprecate xmlns
14:26:20 <ShaneM> +1
14:26:21 <manu> +1
14:26:22 <ivan> +1
14:26:28 <Knud> +1
14:26:31 <Benjamin> +1
14:26:31 <Steven> I can live with that
14:28:31 <markbirbeck> 0
14:29:52 <manu> PROPOSAL: Remove mention of "xmlns: is deprecated" from the RDFa Core 1.1 FPWD
14:30:08 <manu> +1
14:30:08 <ivan> +1
14:30:10 <markbirbeck> +1
14:30:23 <Knud> +1
14:30:23 <Benjamin> +1
14:30:24 <Steven> +1
14:30:29 <ivan> RESOLVED: Remove mention of "xmlns: is deprecated" from the RDFa Core 1.1 FPWD
14:30:35 <ShaneM> +1
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> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/
14:33:11 <ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/ED-rdfa-core-20100414/
14:33:20 <ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/ED-xhtml-rdfa-20100413/
14:33:25 <ivan> q+
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> q+
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> q+
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> -knud
14:41:21 <Knud> argh
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> +knud
14:42:16 <manu> PROPOSAL: Publish RDFa Core 1.1 as First Public Working Draft
14:43:05 <manu> +1
14:43:05 <ivan> +0.5
14:43:06 <markbirbeck> +1
14:43:07 <Benjamin> +1
14:43:10 <Knud> +1
14:43:11 <ShaneM> +1
14:43:11 <markbirbeck> :)
14:43:22 <Steven> +1
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> +1
14:44:04 <Steven> +1
14:44:06 <Benjamin> +1
14:44:07 <markbirbeck> +1
14:44:09 <Knud> +1
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> +1
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> wohooo
14:46:52 <ivan> etc
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: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-dom-api/
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: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-dom-api/rdfa_dom_api.js
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> q+
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> q+
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> q-
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> -markbirbeck
15:02:12 <Zakim> -Steven
15:02:14 <Zakim> -knud
15:02:20 <Zakim> -Benjamin
15:02:31 <Knud> +1 to what Shane just said
15:02:50 <markbirbeck> +1.5
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> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html
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> -Ivan
15:06:17 <Zakim> -manu
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 http://www.w3.org/2010/04/15-rdfa-minutes.html 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