13:53:58 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 13:53:58 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/10/07-rdfa-irc 13:54:00 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:54:00 Zakim has joined #rdfa 13:54:02 Zakim, this will be 7332 13:54:02 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 13:54:03 Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference 13:54:03 Date: 07 October 2010 13:57:22 Benjamin has joined #rdfa 13:57:41 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0030.html 13:57:50 Chair: Manu 13:57:57 Regrets: MarkB, Knud 13:59:59 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started 14:00:06 +manu 14:01:55 + +63.12.057.5aaaa 14:02:12 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 14:02:24 +ShaneM 14:02:25 zakim, aaaa is Benjamin 14:02:25 +Benjamin; got it 14:02:37 zakim, dial steven-617 14:02:37 ok, Steven; the call is being made 14:02:37 +Steven 14:02:49 zakim, dial ivan-voip 14:02:53 ok, ivan; the call is being made 14:03:01 +Ivan 14:03:53 scribe: manu 14:03:58 scribenick: manu 14:04:03 zakim, who is on the call? 14:04:03 On the phone I see manu, Benjamin, ShaneM, Steven, Ivan 14:04:06 zakim, mute me 14:04:13 Ivan should now be muted 14:04:38 Agenda is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0030.html 14:04:51 Manu: any updates on RDFa? 14:05:08 Steven: Added Overstock news to RDFa blog 14:06:04 Manu: Observer also is publishing RDFa 14:09:14 iswc 14:10:14 q+ 14:10:21 ack ivan 14:11:25 q+ to discuss technical issues and their response 14:13:22 Manu: Been talking with some very large content industries about RDFa - they're very interested, starting to work with RDFa. 14:13:59 Topic: ISSUE-20: Deep Processing of XMLLiterals 14:14:05 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/20 14:14:45 Manu: Do we want to support the deep processing of XMLLiterals? 14:16:39 Manu explains why this is a problem for Drupal, CMS systems. 14:16:50 Ivan: If something is a literal, processing stops at that moment. 14:16:57 Ivan: The content of the literal is forgotten for RDFa. 14:17:29 Ivan: The question is whether we should generate the literal and if we should continue to process the contents of the literal. 14:17:50 Steven: If you put ... then nothing would be accessible on the body. 14:17:54 Shane: Yes, that's correct. 14:18:11 Manu: I think we should support this. 14:18:35 Ivan: I don't see any reason why we wouldn't support this - we're adding more triples, not changing ones that already exist. 14:18:41 Ivan: Pretty trivial change in the processing instructions. 14:19:05 Ivan: Editorially, it's a bit more complicated - we do have a processing step whether or not we do/do not do recursion. 14:19:15 q+ to suggest making it optional 14:19:18 Ivan: We should say, we always do recursion if the change is accepted. 14:19:20 ack 14:19:21 ack manu 14:19:21 manu, you wanted to discuss technical issues and their response 14:19:23 ack shanem 14:19:23 ShaneM, you wanted to suggest making it optional 14:19:39 Shane: I think there is a use case here that says that this should be optional behavior. 14:20:05 Shane: Do you think they'd be okay with enabling this as an optional feature? 14:20:12 Ivan: That sounds sexy, but not sure how we'd do that. 14:20:28 Ivan: things become complicated in that case, maybe. 14:20:44 Ivan: Mark raised the issue where we have a mechanism where some features of the process can be controlled. 14:20:58 Ivan: Not an attribute in the XML sense, but a command parameter passed to the parser. 14:21:06 Ivan: Wondering if its worth the trouble to do that. 14:21:28 q+ to focus on yes/no question to support deep processing. 14:21:37 Shane: Adding another attribute has weight 14:22:01 Shane: We've already made a major change in this area - only place we've changed backwards compatibility 14:22:10 Shane: Now we're making a stronger change to XMLLiteral 14:22:21 Shane: In 1.1 we get a plain literal instead of an XMLLiteral now. 14:22:33 Shane: So, now if I want an XMLLiteral, I have to request it 14:23:10 Shane: Today, right now, for RDFa 1.0 you can explicity say that the datatype is rdf:XMLLiteral - and that has the same behavior if you didn't specify the datatype in 1.0 14:23:23 Shane: In all of my RDFa that I produce right now, I say rdf:XMLLiteral so that I'm forward compatible. 14:23:32 Shane: Presumably, anybody that is in the know is doing the same thing now, but 14:23:51 Shane: A 1.0 parser in that mode is going to produce fewer triples than a 1.1 parser - don't know if that's bad or not. 14:24:00 Ivan: Let's put it this way, formally speaking, this is not a problem. 14:24:20 Ivan: All we're saying is that 1.0 triples are still generated, but now we have even more triples that are generated. 14:24:35 Ivan: Charter-wise this is not a problem 14:24:44 Ivan: Socially, this might be a problem... 14:25:04 Ivan: Difficult to say if that's a problem - I'm not sure that XMLLiterals were used very frequently in 1.0 in the first place. 14:25:27 ack manu 14:25:27 manu, you wanted to focus on yes/no question to support deep processing. 14:25:50 asdfasd 14:26:23 Ivan: In 1.1 the property 'blab' will be a plain literal. 14:26:45 Ivan: Even if this is a plain literal, the sfasdfa will be generated as well. 14:27:00 zakim, mute me 14:27:00 Ivan should now be muted 14:27:12 zakim, unmute me 14:27:12 Ivan should no longer be muted 14:27:36

foo bar asdfasd

14:27:50 Ivan: So in 1.0, that would've been an XMLLiteral. 14:28:36 Shane: But, according to the spec, sequence step 11, the recurse is only set to false when you're talking about an XMLLiteral 14:28:44 Shane: Plain content recurses anyway 14:28:57

foo bar asdfasd

14:30:04 Shane: If I have a plain literals, or datatype="" - you recurse 14:30:13 Shane: Processing continues 14:31:46 Manu: So, the issue here is that you don't recurse in the very specific case listed above (property and datatype of XMLLIteral) 14:32:08 Ivan: There is no good reason why we shouldn't deeply process the XMLLiteral. 14:32:21 Shane: The changes to the spec are trivial 14:33:15 The CHANGE to make is that we remove references to the recuse flag. There is no reason to do anything more complicated. 14:33:39 -Steven 14:33:47 zakim, cal steven-617 14:33:47 I don't understand 'cal steven-617', Steven 14:33:55 PROPOSAL: Remove the recurse flag from the Syntax Processing rules in RDFa Core. 14:33:56 zakim, call steven-617 14:33:56 ok, Steven; the call is being made 14:33:58 +Steven 14:34:01 +1 14:34:02 +1 14:34:03 +1 14:34:05 +1 14:34:07 +1 14:35:16 RESOLVED: Remove the recurse flag from the Syntax Processing rules in RDFa Core. 14:35:36 Topic: ISSUE-46: Automatic conversion of plain literals into IRIs 14:35:46 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/46 14:35:52 I have made the changes to the source. 14:36:44 q+ 14:37:10 Manu explains the plain literal vs. IRI issue. 14:37:13 q+ 14:37:18 ack Steven 14:37:37 14:37:55 Steven: I have nothing against the principle, but I do have feelings about how we should do it. 14:37:59 ack steven 14:38:01 ack ivan 14:38:14 Ivan: My approach - the way we would do that is to exclude literals that contain spaces 14:38:25 Ivan: I know that in IRI, you can have space, but SPARQL has already excluded that 14:38:41 Ivan: I'd only support absolute URIs with a scheme that is officially registered by IETF. 14:39:03 q+ to say how we could do this via default language RDFa Profile. 14:39:20 Steven: you have to keep the list of IRIs up to date, right? 14:39:33 q+ to speak against this change 14:39:39 Ivan: There is a regular expression that can support this stuff. 14:39:45 Ivan: The regex is pretty easy 14:40:00 Ivan: We could encode this as a regex. 14:40:11 Ivan: not a big deal to implement it. 14:40:27 Steven: If I said that I would have less problems with this if datatype="iri" what would you say? 14:40:34 Ivan: The use case isn't to add datatype="iri" 14:40:45 Steven: We're doing this to program around a bug in someone elses markup. 14:41:17 Ivan: The bug isn't really a "bug" - it's shared by some very large companies supporting RDFa. 14:41:34 Ivan: I realize that this is not ideal - the reason to have rel goes away, it's a modelling bug, etc. 14:42:04 Ivan: There are two approaches to this - everybody else has to educate themselves and do it properly, or we have to make a step that makes the RDF data that is harvested really nice. 14:42:11 Ivan: Education doesn't really work. 14:42:25 ack manu 14:42:25 manu, you wanted to say how we could do this via default language RDFa Profile. 14:42:49 rdfa:allowedScheme "http" 14:42:53 rdfa:allowedScheme "ftp" 14:42:55 rdfa:allowedScheme "mailto" 14:43:14 ack shanem 14:43:14 ShaneM, you wanted to speak against this change 14:43:40 q+ 14:43:49 Manu: We have a default language profile, we could embed stuff in there. 14:44:27 Shane: I agree with Steven - this is a problem - if RDF says that an object literal isn't a resource, then it isn't a resource. 14:44:38 Shane: We are just an RDF serialization, we shouldn't change the rules. 14:44:42 ack ivan 14:45:07 Ivan: If it were only one company, I'd agree with you 14:45:31 Ivan: but it's more than just one company - it's one of the toughest things for many people to understand and accept. 14:45:41 Ivan: that there is a difference between a URI as a string and a URI as an identifier. 14:45:53 I note that the TAG debates this at least twice a year. 14:45:54 Ivan: This is a generic issue, that we know is around RDF. 14:46:06 Ivan: If I take a serialization like turtle, TURTLE is made for RDF people. 14:46:30 Ivan: TURTLE makes the differentiation very familiar to people with RDF. 14:46:47 Ivan: RDFa has a different constituency - it's not primarily done only for RDF people. 14:47:05 Ivan: It's primarily for people that don't know much about RDF. 14:47:14 Ivan: Whether they do it right or wrong, they don't care 14:47:23 -ShaneM 14:47:24 Ivan: At the end of the day, RDF people will not get the right RDF triples. 14:47:38 +ShaneM 14:48:06 q+ to ask whether or not http://example.org is commonly a string vs. IRI 14:48:23 Ivan: one of the approaches that mark had in his mail is to limit it to the meta element. 14:48:27 if we are going this way, then I would prefer Manu's strategy of declaring interesting shortcut schemes 14:48:49 Ivan: I can live with things the way they are 14:49:05 ack manu 14:49:05 manu, you wanted to ask whether or not http://example.org is commonly a string vs. IRI 14:49:35 datatype="" 14:52:28 Steven: Why do we have to embed Facebook's mistake in the language. 14:52:50 Manu: It's a very good point. 14:53:03 Ivan: My goal is to get as much of the data out there, collectable in proper RDF as possible. 14:53:23 Ivan: If half of the web community is uneducated, we have to live with that, and we have to try and understand what they want to do. 14:53:46 Ivan: I realize this is intellectually ugly - the other alternative is to not care about how this stuff is being marked up right now. 14:54:16 Steven: Why is this bad RDF? The property states that the resource is a URL that just happens to be a string. It's one level more of indirection. 14:55:03 Ivan: What will happen is that we will push the ugliness elsewhere - people will define various vocabularies - proper ontologies will say you should have a URI reference, but the people that are generating the RDF generating strings instead of URIs 14:55:18 Ivan: We can map to any RDF that we want. 14:55:39 q+ to ask why not add just an informal developer hint to the spec about how to be facebook compatible 14:55:55 Ivan: It's the way we interpret the XHTML+RDFa when we generate the triples. 14:56:06 ack Benjamin 14:56:06 Benjamin, you wanted to ask why not add just an informal developer hint to the spec about how to be facebook compatible 14:56:08 Steven: This is very creaky to me - trying to figure out what a proper URI is. 14:56:32 Benjamin: We shouldn't not add a bug fix of someone else to the spec - we should be compatible with most of the data - could we add an informal hint to developers. 14:56:42 Ivan: They know that, Benjamin. 14:57:00 Benjamin: They won't change it, sure - but we can educate developers so that others may not make the same mistake. 14:57:04 q+ to followup on ben's comment 14:57:15 Benjamin: And we do that without changing the spec. 14:58:27 Shane: We could provide guidance in the wiki on this. 14:58:30 q+ to end the telecon 14:58:33 ack shanem 14:58:33 ShaneM, you wanted to followup on ben's comment 14:58:57 Steven: Perhaps if we can identify the properties should be IRIs via plain literals 14:59:05 Steven: Could we state something about this in the RDFa Profile? 14:59:23 Steven: If you follow-your-nose to the property, it could say what the appropriate range is? 15:00:09 Ivan: You could have declarations in the vocabulary document, yes. 15:00:32 Shane: only some of the OGP properties take resources. 15:01:11 ack manu 15:01:12 manu, you wanted to end the telecon 15:03:06 Steven: I don't mind if we have processing instructions in RDFa Profile that say ogp:url should be a IRI 15:03:12 Ivan: There are two issues here. 15:06:43 -ShaneM 15:06:45 zakim, drop me 15:06:45 -manu 15:06:45 Ivan is being disconnected 15:06:46 -Ivan 15:06:46 -Steven 15:06:47 -Benjamin 15:06:48 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended 15:06:50 Attendees were manu, +63.12.057.5aaaa, ShaneM, Benjamin, Steven, Ivan 15:10:24 ShaneM has left #rdfa 15:54:43 ivan has joined #rdfa 17:22:53 Zakim has left #rdfa 17:34:54 trackbot, bye 17:34:54 trackbot has left #rdfa 17:35:01 rrsagent, bye 17:35:01 I see no action items