14:01:52 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 14:01:52 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/08/26-rdfa-irc 14:01:53 csarven has joined #rdfa 14:01:54 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:01:54 Zakim has joined #rdfa 14:01:56 Zakim, this will be 7332 14:01:56 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start now 14:01:57 Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference 14:01:57 Date: 26 August 2010 14:02:00 zakim, code? 14:02:00 the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), manu 14:02:06 zakim, dial steven-617 14:02:11 ok, Steven; the call is being made 14:02:13 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started 14:02:17 +Steven 14:02:24 zakim, who is here? 14:02:37 On the phone I see Steven 14:02:45 uhh... I'm pretty sure I joined too? 14:02:53 On IRC I see csarven, RRSAgent, Benjamin, manu, kennyluck, Steven, ivan, trackbot 14:02:59 +manu 14:03:01 zakim, dial ivan-voip 14:03:05 kennyluck has left #rdfa 14:03:12 ok, ivan; the call is being made 14:03:16 +Ivan 14:04:09 argh, the french number doesn't work 14:05:12 manu has changed the topic to: RDFa telecon Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Aug/0154.html (manu) 14:05:28 zakim, who is on the call? 14:05:28 On the phone I see Steven, manu, Ivan 14:05:42 uk number is busy 14:06:22 zakim, ports? 14:06:22 I see 92 ports in service, 51 ports idle 14:07:05 Strange, the connection to the french number breaks after a few seconds. 14:07:34 +??P37 14:08:01 zakim, who is on the call? 14:08:01 On the phone I see Steven, manu, Ivan, ??P37 14:08:03 +ShaneM 14:08:03 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 14:08:07 zakim, ??P37 is Benjamin 14:08:07 +Benjamin; got it 14:08:59 zakim, who is here? 14:08:59 On the phone I see Steven, manu, Ivan, Benjamin, ShaneM 14:09:00 On IRC I see ShaneM, Zakim, csarven, RRSAgent, Benjamin, manu, Steven, ivan, trackbot 14:09:25 scribe: ivan 14:09:31 scribenick: ivan 14:09:35 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Aug/0154.html 14:10:33 manu: any addition to the agenda? 14:10:39 (stunned silence...) 14:10:43 Topic: issue 28 14:10:53 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/28 14:11:08 manu: we went over the first 1 1/2 emails 14:11:10 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jun/0069.html 14:11:13 ... pick up where we left off 14:11:31 ... we got through the set mapping call comment 14:11:47 ... we disagreed with him, we want the js interface to pass around strings most of the time 14:12:09 DataContext::setMapping ("foaf", "http://xmlns.com/0.1/foaf/"); 14:12:17 DataContext::setMapping ("foaf", new IRI("http://xmlns.com/0.1/foaf/")); 14:12:20 nathan wanted to do the second 14:12:47 DataContext::setMapping ("foaf", document.data.createIRI("http://xmlns.com/0.1/foaf/")); 14:12:49 manu: we got complaints from people that creating IRIs that way is a bad idea 14:12:53 DataContext::setMapping ("foaf", "http://xmlns.com/0.1/foaf/"); 14:12:58 so we have to change to something like the one above 14:13:12 manu: so we would prefer to stick with what is in the spec 14:13:21 (no disagreements) 14:13:50 manu: the other issue is in one of the webidl desc we have to pass a string (iterate call) 14:14:07 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Aug/0001.html 14:14:24 this is the email response to nathan 14:14:44 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-api/#data-parser 14:15:08 manu: we actually changed the iterator to a completely different pattern, so actually that is a non-issue for now 14:15:30 ... which benjamin, mark and I have discussed 14:15:34 ... but no response on that yet 14:15:39 +1 14:16:06 0 14:16:14 0 14:16:41 manu: nathan's last comment that the type of the parser cannot be set 14:17:08 ... we had some discussions about that, we think that the data parser interface needs a hasfeature call 14:17:35 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/43 14:17:45 ... this is now tracked separately in that issue 43 14:17:51 ... so we can move on 14:18:00 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jun/0065.html 14:18:10 (next email of nathan) 14:18:33 manu: he thinks that it should not be restricted to the dom 14:18:43 ... we have concensus that this is what we try to do 14:18:54 ... ie, that the the api can be implemented in a non-dom environment 14:18:55 q+ 14:19:10 ... this came up at the SWCG call yesterday 14:19:35 ack ivan 14:19:38 ... they would like to see the RDFa api be more general, because it can be used in more general setting, too 14:21:11 ivan: the webidl document has mapping on javascript and java only 14:21:25 ... what about python, for example? 14:21:57 Ivan: I'm concerned that WebIDL doesn't have a mapping to Python 14:22:13 Ivan: it's not clear how to map the indexed setter/getter WebIDL stuff to Python. 14:22:29 Ivan: We could implement it in Python, but it's fuzzy. 14:22:47 Ivan: I think we should simply say that we will not necessarily seek implementations in languages other than Java and Javascript. 14:23:02 Ivan: We can only specify this for languages that have WebIDL mappings. 14:23:23 Ivan: I don't think that what Sandro said was that we should have a general API for all RDF languages... that's way beyond what we could/should do. 14:23:46 Ivan: He said, if I am a Javascript programmer, then the API in our document should be general enough to know what I should do in Javascript. 14:24:04 Ivan: We may not need to think about Scala, Ruby, etc. 14:24:23 ShaneM: it was my impression that webidl is only an expansion of omg's idl 14:24:35 Shane: It was my impression that WebIDL is just an expansion of OMG of IDL... so I was under the impression that anybody that could map anything... it's an abstraction. 14:24:41 Shane: It's more guidance than anything. 14:24:42 ... i got the impression that there is no need for an official lang binding 14:24:58 ... having said that I do not know how we will test this, i am not sure i care 14:25:05 Shane: Having said that, I don't really care... it's going to be difficult to test it in Javascript 14:25:11 ... so rely on what they do there 14:25:27 How is the DOM API implemented in the different languages? 14:25:33 ... we use webidl normatively 14:25:39 ... and we have a process question 14:26:01 ACTION: Ivan to find out if we can use WebIDL normatively. 14:26:02 Created ACTION-36 - Find out if we can use WebIDL normatively. [on Ivan Herman - due 2010-09-02]. 14:26:43 manu: what is the concensus on this now? 14:27:01 ... we use webidl is because we want to have portable javascript implementations? 14:27:21 ... if there are interoperability issues with python, then please send the comments to the group 14:30:47 I think we need to idenitfy all of the ecmascript interface signatures so we can write tests. 14:31:31 manu: feedback to the community: do your best, and if a mapping is unclear, contact the group... 14:32:01 ivan: we should decide whether we will test in javascript _and_ in java or only javascript 14:32:10 manu: I would prefer to focus on Javascript only 14:32:13 ivan: agreed 14:32:18 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jun/0065.html 14:32:30 (yet another mail of nathan) 14:32:52 the subject/origin concern 14:32:59 manu: we changed the the api now 14:33:05 3) ISSUE-29: DOM origin generalization (on Manu) http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/29 14:33:33 but there is a separate issue on that one 14:33:54 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jun/0087.html 14:34:21 reponse to that e-mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Aug/0005.html 14:35:29 Note: There is an OMG IDL to Python mapping at http://www.omg.org/spec/PYTH/1.2/PDF/ 14:36:18 manu: go through the points of nathan 14:36:36 ... 1st issue is a typo, clear 14:36:52 ... 2nd on curie resolution, question is how the api resolves curies 14:37:12 ... the document has a default context and when a curie is resolved this is what is used 14:37:25 ... but we did not allow the context to be changed, but we do that now 14:38:27 ... 3rd for registered type conversion, the same issue, same answer... 14:39:10 ... also, there was also no way to programatically resolve a curie, that was an oversight on our side 14:39:17 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-api/#data-context 14:39:25 ShaneM: that can only be used in a context 14:39:30 manu: exactly 14:40:31 ... 3rd for typed literal converter, and you really have to know webidl to really make things understood 14:40:53 ... benjamin would go through the document to add some examples on how to do to conversion properly 14:41:05 benjamin: I can do that 14:41:41 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/32 14:42:59 document.data.registerTypeConversion("xsd:integer", function (value, targetType) { doSomething(); }); 14:43:21 (example to register a type conversion method) 14:43:52 manu: 4th was a bug on the create store method 14:44:11 ... the bug was that the parameter should have been optional 14:44:27 ... and text was added as an explanation 14:44:41 ... to be able to specify the type of store 14:45:04 5th issue, shouldn't a iri be used or a curie 14:45:17 ... the answer was no, we wanted to have just an easy string based mechanism 14:45:40 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-api/#document-data 14:45:41 manu: 6th issue is how to create a new document data instance 14:45:57 ... we have now a create mechanism, too, in the new version 14:46:00 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-api/#document-extensions 14:46:31 (the last entry has the extra call definition) 14:46:40 manu: nathan is happy with the responses 14:46:49 ... we can then close the issue 14:46:52 ... thoughts? 14:46:57 (stunned silence again) 14:47:13 (everybody is happy... probably...) 14:47:17 PROPOSE: Close ISSUE-28, the WG has reviewed and accepts all changes that have been made to the RDFa API document. 14:47:22 +1 14:47:25 +1 14:47:27 +1 14:47:48 +1 14:47:50 +1 14:48:33 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-28, the WG has reviewed and accepts all changes that have been made to the RDFa API document. 14:48:52 Topic: issue 29 14:49:00 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/29 14:49:23 manu: we need to be more careful about origin 14:49:33 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-api/#iri-references 14:49:34 ivan: we were trying to put extra weight on the basic objects 14:49:53 manu: current version do not have any reference to the origin 14:50:20 ... we've taken the origin off there 14:50:25 ... we put it on the property group object 14:50:31 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-api/#property-group 14:51:08 ... property group has the generic 'info' object 14:52:03 .. .the general idea is that you can query in the property group, if it is dom aware, the associated dom node 14:52:17 ... the properties would have the source dom node in the group 14:52:37 var pg = document.data.query.(...); 14:52:55 pg.info.get("foaf:name", "source"); 14:53:18 pg.info.get("foaf:name", "source")[0]; 14:53:19 pg.info.get("foaf:name", "source")[1]; 14:53:41 q+ 14:55:25 ack ivan 14:55:39 q+ to give an example 14:55:48 Ivan: Why do we have property groups again? I can get triples, I can filter those triples... what is the usage for property groups. 14:55:51 ack benjamin 14:55:51 Benjamin, you wanted to give an example 14:58:19 var name = person.get("foaf:name"); 14:59:36 // creates a PropertyGroup for the given subject 14:59:38 var person = document.getItemsBySubject("#bob"); 14:59:39 // Access the property group attribute via complete IRI 14:59:41 var name = person.get("http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name"); 14:59:42 // Access the property group attribute via CURIE 14:59:44 var name = person.get("foaf:name"); 15:00:07 var name = person.name; 15:01:37 It can contain more than a single person, or? 15:02:10 var person = document.getItemsBySubject("#bob")[0]; 15:03:08 person.info <--- that is a dictionary 15:03:21 person.info.get("foaf:name") 15:03:29 person.info.get("foaf:name") <---- indexed by property 15:03:56 person.info.get("foaf:name") ----> this would/could return an array 15:04:07 q+ 15:04:12 person.info.get("foaf:name", "source") ----> this would/could return an array 15:04:35 person.info.get("foaf:name", "source")[0] ----> this would/could return the DOM Node 15:04:44 ack benjamin 15:04:48 q+ 15:06:00 ack ivan 15:06:04 attribute Object info; 15:06:44 how about a presentation style that distinguishes a triple *object* from an IDL object? 15:07:04 that might work, Shane. 15:09:45 -Benjamin 15:11:45 -ShaneM 15:13:11 -manu 15:13:13 zakim, drop me 15:13:13 Ivan is being disconnected 15:13:15 -Ivan 15:13:19 -Steven 15:13:20 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended 15:13:22 Attendees were Steven, manu, Ivan, ShaneM, Benjamin 15:15:44 ShaneM has left #rdfa 15:48:22 trackbot, bye 15:48:22 trackbot has left #rdfa 15:48:23 zakim, bye 15:48:23 Zakim has left #rdfa 15:49:05 manu has left #rdfa 17:43:18 csarven has left #rdfa