13:52:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:52:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/07/22-rdfa-irc
13:54:16 <manu> manu has changed the topic to: RDFa WG Telecon Agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0121.html (manu)
13:54:30 <manu> trackbot, prepare telecon
13:54:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:54:34 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
13:54:34 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
13:54:35 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
13:54:35 <trackbot> Date: 22 July 2010
13:54:39 <manu> Chair: Manu
13:55:20 <manu> Present: Ivan, Steven, Manu, Shane
13:58:57 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
13:59:04 <Zakim> + +1.540.961.aaaa
13:59:10 <manu> zakim, I am aaaa
13:59:10 <Zakim> +manu; got it
14:00:21 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
14:00:21 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
14:00:22 <Zakim> +Steven
14:01:34 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:01:34 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:01:35 <Zakim> +Ivan
14:01:48 <Zakim> +ShaneM
14:02:18 <Knud> Knud has joined #rdfa
14:02:25 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
14:02:38 <Zakim> + +3539149aabb
14:03:29 <Steven> zakim, aabb is Knud
14:03:29 <Zakim> +Knud; got it
14:03:52 <manu> Regrets: Toby
14:04:01 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
14:04:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see manu, Steven, Ivan, ShaneM, Knud
14:04:11 <markbirbeck> markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
14:04:40 <markbirbeck> On my way...
14:04:46 <markbirbeck> zakim, code?
14:04:46 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), markbirbeck
14:05:21 <markbirbeck> Aargh..."all circuits are busy now".
14:05:56 <Steven> Mark, did you notice new numbers?
14:05:58 <Zakim> +??P21
14:06:05 <markbirbeck> zakim, i am ?
14:06:05 <Zakim> +markbirbeck; got it
14:06:39 <markbirbeck> @Steven: Football arrived yesterday...Reuben extremely happy!
14:06:53 <manu> Scribe: Mark
14:07:13 <markbirbeck> TOPIC: Heartbeat working drafts by end July 2010.
14:07:20 <Steven> s/@1,08Steven: Football arrived yesterday...Reuben extremely happy!//
14:07:35 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
14:07:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/07/22-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
14:08:28 <markbirbeck> Manu: We may be late on RDFa Core...need to publish every 3 months.
14:08:49 <markbirbeck> Steven: Technically, we need to publish /something/ every 3 months, but no necessarily the same draft.
14:09:02 <Steven> s/the same/each/
14:09:10 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Agree...according to process we're ok.
14:09:35 <markbirbeck> Shane: We can publish RDFa Core whenever we like, it's always up-to-date.
14:09:38 <Steven> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:09:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see manu, Steven, Ivan, ShaneM, Knud, markbirbeck
14:09:47 <Steven> Present+Mark
14:09:50 <Steven> Present+Knud
14:09:51 <markbirbeck> Manu: Not too worried about state of RDFa Core.
14:10:01 <markbirbeck> ... But we haven't done anything on the API document for a while.
14:10:17 <markbirbeck> ... Shane, could we have RDFa Core and HTML+RDFa ready to go?
14:10:26 <markbirbeck> ... And then we could discuss the API document in the next month.
14:10:32 <markbirbeck> ... Everyone ok with that?
14:10:40 <markbirbeck> ... General nodding.
14:10:52 <ivan> q+
14:10:53 <markbirbeck> TOPIC: ISSUE-26 
14:13:10 <manu> Mark: I'm concerned that we're creating a technology that we may not need. There are ways to do error mechanisms w/o needing an RDFa error vocabulary.
14:13:35 <markbirbeck> s/may not need/may not be able to agree on, without using up a lot of time/
14:13:38 <manu> Mark: So the discussion may need to go back to whether or not we need to specify the error reporting mechanism in RDFa Core.
14:14:01 <manu> Ivan: Maybe we can keep the current formulation of processor graph and default graph.
14:14:09 <Steven> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0121
14:14:14 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
14:14:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/07/22-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
14:14:36 <manu> Ivan: We should not define the details of what goes into the processor graph.
14:14:41 <manu> q+ to discuss vocabulary
14:14:45 <manu> ack ivan
14:15:19 <manu> Ivan: If we put this formulation into the document, maybe the community will give us feedback as to whether or not they want an error reporting mechanism.
14:15:23 <manu> ack manu
14:15:23 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss vocabulary
14:15:30 <ShaneM> I don't care anymore
14:16:49 <markbirbeck> Manu: Problem is that each parser has a different mechanism for reporting errors.
14:16:49 <ivan> q+
14:17:08 <markbirbeck> ... Would be great if Firefox's technique was the same as Ivan's Distiller.
14:17:33 <markbirbeck> ... If we think that this would be useful not just to developers but end-users, then we should go to some lengths to define these values.
14:17:58 <markbirbeck> ... We don't necessarily need to put the error vocabulary into RDFa Core, but it would be good if we did create a vocabulary.
14:18:08 <manu> ack ivan
14:18:27 <markbirbeck> Ivan: The problem is that realistically this is where opinions differ.
14:18:55 <markbirbeck> ... So I have my version of the vocabulary...Benjamin wants an XML literal...Mark wants something EARL-based.
14:19:10 <manu> q+ to discuss consensus
14:19:18 <markbirbeck> ... So obtaining consensus is going to be time-consuming.
14:19:37 <markbirbeck> ... Agree with Mark that this isn't so central that it should take up so much time.
14:19:49 <manu> ack manu
14:19:49 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss consensus
14:19:53 <markbirbeck> ... So for the time being feel that we should just leave it open for now.
14:20:08 <markbirbeck> Manu: Not saying that this vocabulary should be discussed on the WG.
14:20:29 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Ok...happy to write that down.
14:21:20 <markbirbeck> Manu: Seems like something that is useful and warrants guidance.
14:24:20 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about how errors are handled in core
14:24:57 <manu> Mark: I don't know if we need to have anything in RDFa Core about processor graphs. I think it makes sense in the RDFa API document.
14:25:01 <ivan> ack ShaneM 
14:25:01 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about how errors are handled in core
14:25:05 <ivan> q+
14:25:11 <markbirbeck> Mark: Would prefer to not see this in there at all, because I have a general feeling that things are getting more complicated.
14:25:19 <manu> ack ivan
14:25:34 <markbirbeck> Shane: What do we say in the core document about processing errors?
14:25:49 <markbirbeck> Ivan: We should retain the processor graph idea, so we only need to refer to that.
14:25:57 <markbirbeck> ... We don't need to say what the triples look like.
14:26:19 <markbirbeck> Shane: If there is consensus on that then I'm fine.
14:26:37 <markbirbeck> Manu: There is other language in there about how to access this graph.
14:26:50 <ShaneM> The language is here: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#processor-status
14:29:17 <ivan> q+
14:30:08 <markbirbeck> Manu: It looks like section 7.6.2 is what should come out.
14:31:01 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Think that the final warning in the list shouldn't be a must.
14:31:15 <markbirbeck> ... (In the opening part of section 7.6.)
14:31:54 <ivan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0130.html
14:32:46 <markbirbeck> Mark: Are we saying processors MUST implement all of this?
14:33:16 <markbirbeck> Manu: No. If you choose to implement this, then it must conform to this particularly arrangement.
14:33:18 <manu> PROPOSAL: A general error reporting mechanism should be described by RDFa Core, but the specifics of the RDFa Error Vocabulary are out of scope for RDFa Core per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0130.html
14:33:33 <ivan> +1
14:33:43 <manu> +1
14:33:50 <Knud> +1
14:33:56 <markbirbeck> +0
14:34:05 <Steven> +1
14:34:28 <ShaneM> +1
14:36:14 <manu> RESOLVED: A general error reporting mechanism should be described by RDFa Core, but the specifics of the RDFa Error Vocabulary are out of scope for RDFa Core per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0130.html
14:36:32 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Don't forget to update tracker.
14:36:41 <markbirbeck> TOPIC: ISSUE 24
14:36:48 <Steven> issue-26?
14:36:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-26 -- Do we need an error reporting mechanism for RDFa? -- closed
14:36:48 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/26
14:36:52 <markbirbeck> Manu: Shane put out a proposal in the last day or so.
14:37:03 <Steven> issue-24?
14:37:03 <trackbot> ISSUE-24 -- Should all terms be case-sensitive in HTML5 and XHTML? -- open
14:37:03 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/24
14:37:16 <markbirbeck> Shane: This is actually Manu's proposal...I just provided the dextrous digits.
14:37:41 <markbirbeck> ... Upshot of the proposal is to treat all terms as being compared case-insensitively.
14:38:02 <markbirbeck> ... Solves the real problem I had which was that special-casing vocabularies seemed weird.
14:38:20 <markbirbeck> ... Comparison of terms is case-insensitive.
14:38:26 <markbirbeck> ... Languages can define terms.
14:38:45 <manu> q+ to discuss language documents that specify terms
14:38:46 <markbirbeck> ... A profile should be declared to contain the terms, but they can be hard-coded.
14:38:48 <manu> ack ivan
14:39:48 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Clarifications: It's not a core part of the proposal but relates to last week's discussion -- the default vocabulary goes away.
14:40:33 <markbirbeck> Shane: Disagree. The spec says that a language can define a default vocabulary.
14:41:12 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Second thing is what to do with CURIEs that have an empty prefix.
14:41:33 <markbirbeck> ... Shane's proposal resolves this, but would like to see a note in there to say that it's not a good idea.
14:41:58 <markbirbeck> ... Final thing is to say that the set of terms in the current profile is fixed.
14:42:07 <markbirbeck> ... I.e., if we add more terms then we need a new URI.
14:42:19 <markbirbeck> ... Not sure how that will go down with HTML 5 and others.
14:42:38 <markbirbeck> Manu: Want to make it easy for implementers to define one set of terms.
14:43:03 <markbirbeck> ... In the future HTML 5 will start adding terms, but it could take a while, so I don't think there will be an issue for a while.
14:43:49 <markbirbeck> ... So we say that this is the default document for all RDFa processors. Then in a year or two we discover that there are other terms needed, and it's not too much of an issue to just add them.
14:44:24 <ivan> q+
14:44:27 <manu> ack manu
14:44:27 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss language documents that specify terms
14:44:30 <markbirbeck> ... However, if we need something dynamic for HTML 5 then we could create a document that contains a profile that must be loaded.
14:46:00 <manu> ack ivan
14:46:20 <markbirbeck> Ivan: I'm going to get into details here...but I think we need to.
14:46:41 <markbirbeck> ... Conceptually XHTML will have its own profile document that lists the terms. Whether that's cached or not is besides the point.
14:47:15 <markbirbeck> ... What happens if I have an XHTML document that has a profile document at the top?
14:47:20 <markbirbeck> Shane: That should override the default.
14:47:45 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Agree, but that should be made clear.
14:47:52 <markbirbeck> Shane: Have related question.
14:48:32 <markbirbeck> ... If I load a profile on one element, and then load another in a child element, we get the result of both?
14:48:38 <markbirbeck> General nodding.
14:48:56 <markbirbeck> Shane: Since this is correct, then we have no way to clear the collection.
14:49:40 <markbirbeck> ... @xml:lang="" clears the language...do we want the same feature?
14:49:47 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Give me the use-case.
14:50:48 <markbirbeck> Shane: I'm bringing in a part of a document, and I want to ensure that only the triples I want get included.
14:50:56 <markbirbeck> ... Will raise this separately.
14:51:15 <markbirbeck> Ivan: If we're planning a new draft, we should also get the default profile document ready.
14:51:32 <markbirbeck> Manu: Isn't that the same as the XHTML Vocab document?
14:51:38 <markbirbeck> Shane: Yes...I'll update it.
14:51:53 <markbirbeck> Manu: Any objections to Shane's proposal?
14:52:25 <Steven> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0122.html
14:52:41 <manu> PROPOSAL: Adopt proposal for addressing ISSUE-24 (case-sensitive terms in HTML5) as posted to the mailing list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0122.html
14:52:52 <ivan> +1
14:52:54 <markbirbeck> +1
14:52:55 <manu> +1
14:52:56 <Steven> +1
14:52:59 <Knud> +1
14:53:06 <manu> RESOLVED: Adopt proposal for addressing ISSUE-24 (case-sensitive terms in HTML5) as posted to the mailing list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0122.html
14:53:10 <ShaneM> +1
14:53:38 <markbirbeck> TOPIC: ISSUE 3
14:53:43 <Steven> issue-3?
14:53:43 <trackbot> ISSUE-3 -- Updating HTML5 coercion to Infoset rules -- open
14:53:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/3
14:54:00 <markbirbeck> Manu: Could either be very easy to resolve...or very difficult, depending on whether we involve the HTML Wg.
14:54:05 <markbirbeck> s/Wg./WG./
14:55:02 <markbirbeck> ... Issue raised some time ago by Henri, when he said that if we don't coerce the document into an infoset, then people won't know how to get attribute values.
14:55:22 <markbirbeck> ... No-one had this problem, since many people had created JS parsers.
14:56:23 <markbirbeck> ... There's a proposal now that HTML 5 parsing should preserve namespace values.
14:57:17 <markbirbeck> Ivan: It's one of those things where I understood it when you were explaining it...then it vanished.
14:57:27 <markbirbeck> ... Is this something this WG has to deal with?
14:57:36 <markbirbeck> ... And is the HTML WG prepared to look at this?
14:58:06 <markbirbeck> Manu: If we specify it, it will make it easier to extract the XMLNS terms.
14:58:43 <markbirbeck> ... If it's rejected from HTML 5, then we have another path which is to specify it ourselves.
14:59:43 <markbirbeck> ... As to whether the HTML WG is open to this, I don't know; an issue would be whether this breaks backwards-compatibility, and to answer that we'd need to speak with browser vendors.
15:00:28 <markbirbeck> ... This is already in the spec and Henri hasn't raised any objections yet. But that may be because it's not on his (and/or Hixie's) radar.
15:00:59 <ShaneM> q+ to suggest a path
15:01:06 <manu> ack shanem
15:01:06 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to suggest a path
15:01:26 <markbirbeck> ... If it comes out of HTML 5 then we just do it the hard way, and look in both places for the values.
15:01:55 <markbirbeck> Shane: Admire your passion Eran Brokevich, but we have a solution, so not sure it's worth pushing on it.
15:02:19 <markbirbeck> ... Since browsers won't know whether this breaks anything, then they could well be reluctant to make this change.
15:02:33 <markbirbeck> ... "Let it go, Manu...let it go".
15:02:44 <markbirbeck> Manu: I think I'm going to push a bit longer.
15:03:26 <markbirbeck> (Would like to point out that we all laughed when Manu first suggested that HTML 5 should support RDFa, and that he was going to make it happen.)
15:03:47 <Steven> Regrets for next 4 weeks
15:04:15 <markbirbeck> Ivan: Regrets for next 4 weeks.
15:04:24 <markbirbeck> Steven: Regrest for next 4 weeks.
15:04:34 <markbirbeck> s/Regrest/Regrest/
15:05:14 <Zakim> -manu
15:05:15 <Zakim> -markbirbeck
15:05:15 <ivan> zakim, drop me
15:05:16 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
15:05:16 <Zakim> -Ivan
15:05:18 <Zakim> -Knud
15:05:20 <Steven> s/Regrest/Regrets/
15:05:25 <Zakim> -ShaneM
15:05:46 <Steven> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see Steven
15:05:51 <Zakim> -Steven
15:05:52 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
15:05:54 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.540.961.aaaa, manu, Steven, Ivan, ShaneM, +3539149aabb, Knud, markbirbeck
15:06:03 <Steven> rrsagent,make minutes
15:06:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/07/22-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
15:06:19 <markbirbeck> For information: I'm speaking at an event organised with Talis and NHS, on August 17th on Ontologies and Healthcare. Have invited Steven to speak on RDFa, since he's visiting at the time. :)
15:06:30 <Steven> lol
16:30:31 <markbirbeck> markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
16:30:38 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
17:28:37 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfa
18:14:54 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
18:30:17 <manu> trackbot, bye
18:30:17 <trackbot> trackbot has left #rdfa
18:30:20 <manu> rrsagent, bye
18:30:20 <RRSAgent> I see no action items