13:50:33 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 13:50:33 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/11/04-rdfa-irc 13:50:35 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:50:35 Zakim has joined #rdfa 13:50:37 Zakim, this will be 7332 13:50:37 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes 13:50:38 Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference 13:50:38 Date: 04 November 2010 13:56:52 Benjamin has joined #rdfa 13:59:50 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started 14:00:10 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 14:00:27 zakim, who is here? 14:00:27 On the phone I see no one 14:00:28 On IRC I see ShaneM, Benjamin, Zakim, RRSAgent, manu, ivan, webr3, trackbot 14:00:34 zakim, dial ivan-voip 14:00:34 ok, ivan; the call is being made 14:01:16 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:01:16 On the phone I see no one 14:01:29 zakim, I am on the phone 14:01:29 I don't understand 'I am on the phone', manu 14:01:53 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Nov/0005.html 14:02:20 Present: Manu, Shane, Ivan, Nathan 14:02:54 scribenick: ivan 14:03:00 Scribe: Ivan 14:03:21 Present+ Benjamin 14:03:43 Regrets: Mark, Knuth 14:03:45 Regrets: Knud, MarkB 14:04:06 Regrets+ Steven 14:04:23 Topic: XHTML+RDFa Last Call 14:04:26 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/ED-xhtml-rdfa-20101101/ 14:05:03 manu: shane, are there any issues that have not been addressed? 14:05:31 ShaneM: mark had a concern in section 3 of the document 14:05:51 ... there are bulleted 'modifications' or additions to the processing rules 14:06:08 ... the last two he thinks needs additional clarification 14:06:25 ... I think they are already covered in step 7, so it is not necessary 14:06:36 manu: are there test cases 14:06:44 ShaneM: these are not new changes 14:06:50 ... so we should 14:07:20 manu: this particular issue does not have anything to do with the element, as you say 14:07:40 .. anyone having a deep concern about not putting more words here? 14:07:47 ... it would be editorial 14:07:56 ShaneM: not sure 14:08:17 manu: we are not changing the way the spec works, we just clarify what is happening, no design changes 14:08:29 ... do you agree 14:08:47 ShaneM: I cannot imagine what change we would make and that would change anyone's processor 14:08:52 ... in this sense you are right 14:08:57 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#sequence 14:09:19 ... but the text in rdfa core, section 6 I think it explicitly deals with typeof 14:09:46 ... mark was saying that we need to say where in step 7 these additional processing rules come into play 14:09:56 ... but I think it is very clear 14:11:07 Sequence, step #6: If no URI is provided by a resource attribute, then the first match from the following rules will apply: 14:11:13 if @typeof is present, then new subject is set to be a newly created bnode. 14:11:50 manu: it seems to be perfectly fine 14:12:07 ... I agree with you shane there is no issue here 14:12:38 ShaneM: that was the only issue that I know of 14:13:11 manu: there was an issue in which order we process? 14:13:45 .. only carries over to the body 14:13:49 ... from head 14:14:00 manu: any issues any reason why not taking to last call 14:15:58 PROPOSAL: Promote XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to Last Call with a publication date of November 9th, 2010. 14:16:08 +1 14:16:09 +1 14:16:10 +1 14:16:14 +1 14:16:34 +1 14:16:43 Mark Birbeck: +1 - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Nov/0026.html 14:17:04 Knud Möller: +1 - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Nov/0027.html 14:17:09 RESOLVED: Promote XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to Last Call with a publication date of November 9th, 2010. 14:17:59 manu: for plan for HTML5+RDFa: the plan is to clean up the bugs on dec 5, and the idea is to put the documents to LC in early spring 14:18:47 ... the biggest issue we have is that people that are trying to pull us into the fight into the HTML discussion so that RDFa processors should generate accessibilty triples 14:18:51 q+ to ask about PFWG 14:19:16 ack shaneM 14:19:16 ShaneM, you wanted to ask about PFWG 14:19:19 that would mean that html5+rdfa processors would generate different thigns than before 14:19:30 ShaneM: what are you talking about with the pfwg hat on? 14:19:48 s/the/my/ 14:19:56 Open bugs for HTML+RDFa 1.1: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&product=HTML+WG&component=HTML%2BRDFa+(editor:+Manu+Sporny)&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug 14:19:58 _status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0= 14:20:34 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&product=HTML+WG&component=HTML%2BRDFa+(editor:+Manu+Sporny) 14:21:02 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10970 14:21:08 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11169 14:22:14 ShaneM: there was an agreement not to follow that up? 14:22:30 ... on 4th october he said he would not follow that up 14:22:47 manu: ... in the rdfa group. But not in the html wg 14:23:01 ... and he is pushing on accessibility discussion 14:23:19 ... he was very involved, and he tried to pull the rdfa wg into this discussion 14:23:44 ... he thinks we should generate triples for is that the microdata spec supports it 14:23:58 manu: but feature parity with microdata is not a goal for us 14:25:35 ACTION: Shane get a statement from the PFWG on HTML+RDFa issues 11169 and 10970 (triples for @longdesc and @cite) 14:25:36 Created ACTION-39 - Get a statement from the PFWG on HTML+RDFa issues 11169 and 10970 (triples for @longdesc and @cite) [on Shane McCarron - due 2010-11-11]. 14:25:43 zakim, who is making noise? 14:25:54 manu, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P19 (50%), ??P22 (19%), Ivan (62%) 14:26:05 zakim, who is on the call? 14:26:05 On the phone I see no one 14:26:33 zakim, mute ??P19 14:26:33 sorry, manu, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??P19 14:27:09 Ivan: The point that we have to make clear is that the current RDFa Core 1.1 doesn't have any formal mechanism to extend RDFa Core w/ additional elements/attributes could/should be supported. 14:27:37 Ivan: We don't have a formal mechanism where we can extend the attributes processed by RDFa Core - for example @datetime in HTML5. 14:28:09 Ivan: We don't have anything to extend the processing steps - we can't just add these items for different languages easily. 14:29:10 FYI - what we said w.r.t. our own internal version of issue 10970 was: 14:29:10 I believe that the discussion was aware that this work might be done > in XHTML+RDFa. In the end, I agree with the working group that it > would be inappropriate at this time to try to introduce any > processing rules for @cite and @longdesc in any flavor of RDFa. My > recollection of the meeting is that this opinion was agreed by the > majority of the people present. 14:29:34 column 14:29:36 vs colon 14:29:52 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670 14:30:17 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/120 14:36:30 Topic: ISSUE-52: Lightweight DataStore aligned with ECMAScript 14:36:39 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/52 14:36:46 manu: this is our biggest issue 14:36:57 ... but mark is not on the call today:-( 14:37:13 ... there is a lot of stuff in it 14:37:27 ... there was some discussion on graph, store, data store, etc 14:37:42 ... a lot of the decision on the interface depends on that 14:37:54 ... question is whether we have a graph plus data store or not 14:38:12 webr3: if we do not have a graph in the api 14:38:21 ... so that is completely in the api at all 14:38:35 ... we have a data store which is not clear whether it has one, or several set of triples 14:38:45 ... so it was not fully defined 14:38:58 ... when i implemented and i realized this 14:39:09 ... want to realign it to have a clear set of triples 14:39:26 ... the datastore interface is more an array a triples 14:39:49 ... and we came up that datastore is just a graph 14:40:23 ... mark said that he had the idea was raised but was pushed back 14:40:31 q+ to discuss complexity for developers. 14:40:49 ack manu 14:40:49 manu, you wanted to discuss complexity for developers. 14:41:06 manu: the gut reaction i had was this is getting more an more complicated to developers 14:41:18 .... whatever we create should be simple for js developers 14:41:40 ... but i want to make sure that the most common use case can be written down properly 14:41:42 q+ 14:41:48 ... and that is a danger 14:42:02 ... it is not clear what a js developer would use this interface 14:42:35 .. when a make a query, do they path a graph, a datastore, would they realize the difference between the two? 14:42:50 ack ivan 14:43:23 Ivan: In RDFlib - there are only graphs. 14:43:39 Ivan: I do operations on the graph - that is in the Python world - I don't understand the necessity of a DataStore. 14:43:50 Ivan: We have graphs or stores, why do we need both? 14:43:56 q+ to discuss named graphs. 14:44:07 q+ to addres points 14:44:09 ack manu 14:44:09 manu, you wanted to discuss named graphs. 14:44:25 manu: one of the reason is that having a concept the named graph 14:44:27 q+ 14:44:41 ack webr3 14:44:42 ack webr 14:44:44 webr, you wanted to addres points 14:44:53 q+ webr to address points 14:45:03 ack ivan 14:45:21 Ivan: We have separate graphs, the first is the processing graph, the other one is something else. 14:45:25 ack webr 14:45:25 webr, you wanted to address points 14:45:31 q+ to discuss named graphs a bit more 14:45:39 webr3: for the complexity 14:46:00 ... this interface proposed is the same as an array in js, we can call it a graph, but it is the same 14:46:18 ... we need some more methods, but it is a a js array 14:46:25 ... it is familiar and normal for js programmer 14:46:36 ... it is also easy to implement it 14:46:50 ... you have to proxy things to an array 14:46:59 ... from that aspect it is simpler and familiar 14:47:21 ... the difference between the two: a datastore is where we store the graphs 14:47:33 ... that is pretty much a datastore 14:47:47 ... and if you have a datastore, we need a way to represent a graph 14:47:55 ... we need a form of a graph 14:48:40 ... finally...when you store a graph you pass a name to it, and you get the named graph 14:48:50 ... that is essentially the role of a datastore 14:49:06 ... and there is no concept of a named graph in the datastore right now 14:49:07 ack manu 14:49:07 manu, you wanted to discuss named graphs a bit more 14:49:17 manu: you did clarify the named graph issue 14:49:34 ... the rdfa wg has to decide is how to decide on named graphs 14:49:35 q+ 14:49:54 ... we might want to work on that 14:50:35 q+ to make distinction between "RDFa API" and "RDF TripleStore API" 14:50:35 ... we already the concept of a processor graph and we could formalize it in the api 14:50:49 ack ivan 14:50:58 Ivan: I disagree 14:51:36 Ivan: The RDFa Working Group does not have in its charter to do anything w/ Named Graphs - we don't even know what Named Graphs mean. There are ideas flying around in the community, but we don't know what the consensus is. 14:52:02 Ivan: There will probably be an RDF WG, they will have to decide what to do w/ Named Graphs, but that is going to take much longer than the charter of this WG. 14:52:19 Ivan: We should not push of LC for RDFa API for named graphs - that was the formal comment. 14:52:58 Ivan: In practice, we should provide enough extensibility that would allow the named graph stuff in the future. 14:53:13 Ivan: We have to deliver layer 1 and possibly layer 2 - RDFa API... 14:53:23 Ivan: but named graphs may be a layer 3 issue 14:53:42 Ivan: Doing Named Graphs is not in our charter -- formal. 14:53:48 ack webr 14:53:48 webr, you wanted to make distinction between "RDFa API" and "RDF TripleStore API" 14:53:54 webr3: i agree with what ivan said 14:54:11 ... with an rdfa document and the dom you do not need a store with multiple graphs 14:54:21 ... what we need is a simple rdf graphs 14:54:35 ... you can get many of those, merge them, you can deal with them 14:55:03 ... what we do not have is to have multiple graphs with names etc, that is a matter of the rdf level and is not rdfa level 14:55:22 q+ to say that we don't have to name the graphs. 14:55:35 ack manu 14:55:35 manu, you wanted to say that we don't have to name the graphs. 14:55:44 manu: part of me agrees with you 14:56:02 ... we can have a concept of a graph, and we can put it in a datastore 14:56:14 ... but that could mean a merge it, so we loose the provenance information 14:56:22 ... we try to balance it 14:56:42 ... ivan is right, if we do a named graph then we are creating a precedence 14:56:56 q+ to ask if multiple stores can exist in the scope of a single document 14:57:08 ack Benjamin 14:57:08 Benjamin, you wanted to ask if multiple stores can exist in the scope of a single document 14:57:11 ... then we can a problem if, for example, a rdf group says that it has to have a uri as a name, we have problems 14:57:23 Benjamin: can we have multiple stores in a document? 14:57:43 ... is it possible to handle them? 14:57:48 .. i think it is 14:58:06 webr3: currently we need a distinction between a graph and a store 14:58:18 ... you can have multiple contexts, documents... 14:58:37 ... if we define in a some way that we can have multiple datastores 14:58:40 q+ to ask Nathan to create DataStore and RDFGraph IDL 14:58:43 ... but generally it is possible 14:59:07 ... we have to think about different environments, because people want it 14:59:17 ... we cannot do that with only one store and one databse 14:59:29 ... one other thing 14:59:46 ... there is a sparql consideration there, which raised the FROM thing 14:59:52 ... we have to specify what the FROM is 14:59:54 ack manu 14:59:54 manu, you wanted to ask Nathan to create DataStore and RDFGraph IDL 15:00:48 manu: it is difficult for me to imagine what exactly you have in mind 15:01:05 webr3: we definitely need a graph, and many people will need a store 15:01:20 ... but a store is so common that we can as well standardize it 15:01:27 ... there conceptually two distinct things 15:01:39 q+ 15:01:57 ack ivan 15:02:04 manu: can you write the interfaces down so that we can discuss them next week 15:02:04 q+ to end the telecon 15:04:18 q+ to clarify minor detail 15:04:30 ack manu 15:04:30 manu, you wanted to end the telecon 15:04:38 --- adjurned 15:04:42 ack webr 15:04:42 webr, you wanted to clarify minor detail 15:13:37 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#accessing-the-processor-graph 15:16:21 The point I raised was that the RDFa API needs to at the very least allow access to the processor graph and the default graph (and the combined graph?) 15:22:27 zakim, drop me 15:22:27 sorry, ivan, I do not see a party named 'ivan' 15:22:35 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended 15:22:36 Attendees were 15:25:35 trackbot, help? 15:25:35 See http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 15:25:48 ivan: getting a commonscribe error 15:25:55 minutes were not recorded :( 15:26:04 ouch 15:26:06 Error, Can't Open URL: Failed on 'http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Chatlog_2010-11-04' 15:26:17 rrsagent, make logs public 15:26:30 http://www.w3.org/2010/11/04-rdfa-irc does exist 15:26:38 so we are not completely without a trace 15:26:46 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:26:46 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/04-rdfa-minutes.html ivan 15:26:49 that's good... do you know what moves the chatlog over? 15:26:52 (this is the old style) 15:27:03 rrsagent, set log public 15:27:09 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:27:09 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/04-rdfa-minutes.html ivan 15:27:29 hmmm 15:28:08 what the heck 15:28:16 only half of the IRC log is showing... 15:28:19 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:28:19 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/04-rdfa-minutes.html ivan 15:28:51 and the generated minutes do not work 15:28:58 have no idea what is going on 15:29:07 I have the impression that some server errors due to the TPAC 15:29:25 I would propose that, this time, we link in the irc log to the wiki pages 15:29:27 I've copied the log 15:29:34 well, the irc log is incomplete 15:29:50 at least it got our resolution. 15:29:51 wait, I might have the logs automatically stored on my machine 15:30:02 I already copied the entire log 15:30:07 I have a local copy of the IRC log. 15:30:09 oh you have it? 15:30:16 put it on the web and let us refer to that 15:30:27 if there is a problem next week, then we can bug the system team 15:30:50 as you said, the important point is that we have the resolution recorded 15:31:16 on tuesday the irc server was overloaded on the sparql group... 15:31:52 hmm, I think I can trick commonscribe, one sec. 15:32:07 :-) 16:24:49 trackbot, bye 16:24:49 trackbot has left #rdfa 16:24:51 zakim, bye 16:24:51 Zakim has left #rdfa 16:27:41 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-11-04 16:27:49 manu has left #rdfa 20:10:51 tinkster has joined #rdfa 21:36:58 ShaneM has left #rdfa