13:55:29 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 13:55:29 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/01-rdfa-irc 13:55:31 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:55:31 Zakim has joined #rdfa 13:55:33 Zakim, this will be 7332 13:55:33 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 13:55:34 Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference 13:55:34 Date: 01 September 2011 13:56:17 manu1 has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Aug/0093.html (manu1) 13:56:22 Chair: Manu 13:56:25 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Aug/0093.html 13:58:00 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started 13:58:07 +??P20 13:58:10 zakim, I am ??P20 13:58:10 +gkellogg; got it 13:59:32 lindstream has joined #rdfa 13:59:43 + +1.781.866.aaaa 14:00:17 - +1.781.866.aaaa 14:01:13 +??P41 14:01:13 scor has joined #rdfa 14:01:19 +aharon 14:01:21 zakim, dial ivan-voip 14:01:23 ok, ivan; the call is being made 14:01:27 +Ivan 14:01:29 zakim, I am ??P41 14:01:35 +lindstream; got it 14:01:47 + +1.781.866.aabb 14:01:58 zakim, i am aaaa 14:02:03 sorry, tomayac, I do not see a party named 'aaaa' 14:02:20 Zakim, I'm aabb 14:02:21 I don't understand 'I'm aabb', scor 14:02:29 zakim, aabb is me 14:02:31 +??P49 14:02:33 +scor; got it 14:02:34 zakim, I am ??P49 14:02:37 +manu1; got it 14:02:47 zakim, who is on the call? 14:02:49 On the phone I see gkellogg, lindstream, aharon, Ivan, scor, manu1 14:03:37 zakim, who is making noise? 14:03:47 scor, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 6 (37%), gkellogg (13%), aharon (34%), manu1 (60%) 14:04:00 zakim, aharon is tomayac 14:04:00 +tomayac; got it 14:04:00 zakim, who is on the call? 14:04:02 On the phone I see gkellogg, lindstream, tomayac, Ivan, scor, manu1 14:05:55 scribenick: ivan 14:06:41 manu: the agenda will have to be moved around, one of the items was a closed issue 14:06:52 ... we have to respond to netlab, 14:06:59 ... it is not good to push this off 14:07:10 ... they are interested 14:08:08 ... any other updates to the agend? 14:08:11 .... 1 14:08:13 ..... 2 14:08:15 .... none 14:08:22 Topic: Response to netlabs.org 14:08:23 +1 on RDFa core prior to API.. 14:08:29 manu: let us talk about the netlab stuff very quickly 14:08:43 We should focus on RDFa Core right now 14:08:52 We need to say something to these guys: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Aug/0033.html 14:09:07 ACTION: Manu to respond to netlabs.org folks 14:09:08 Created ACTION-91 - Respond to netlabs.org folks [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-09-08]. 14:09:11 q+ 14:09:20 ack lindstream 14:09:38 +??P70 14:09:39 lindstream: we should say that the api is still in flux, we should tell them that 14:09:49 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 14:09:52 zakim, ??P70 is ShaneM 14:09:56 +ShaneM; got it 14:10:00 topic: issue 103 14:10:05 manu: this is resolved 14:10:08 Topic: ISSUE-110: graph source triple 14:10:09 topic: issue 110 14:10:13 issue-110? 14:10:13 ISSUE-110 -- Should RDFa Processor output a triple for the source of a graph? -- open 14:10:13 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/110 14:10:38 manu: had some discussion on the mailing list 14:10:57 q+ 14:10:58 niklas: I do not have a strong opinion, and I do not think we should do it 14:11:18 ... just to highlight my problems I wrote a mail 14:11:30 ... we get into a mess on the name 14:11:42 ack gkellogg 14:11:54 gkellogg: i think the problem is that we do not generate a document 14:12:04 ... we create a graph 14:12:07 ... and a graph has to a fully resolved uri 14:12:20 ... so i am not sure we can add a name 14:12:36 ... we could do add a triple on a type 14:12:38 q+ 14:12:42 ack ivan 14:12:58 Ivan: That was the original proposal 14:13:11 Ivan: What I had in mind was this: 14:13:21 a rdfa:Source . 14:14:02 Ivan: We can do that without problems, it doesn't raise all of the issues w/o naming. We do not generate a document we generate a graph - unless we introduce the concept of graph naming, we have a problem. 14:14:22 Ivan: We can fall back to what I say above. It solves the issue for applications that want to have that information. 14:14:27 .. like an implied 14:14:36 gkellogg: it is the best we can do 14:14:47 ... it is a useful triple to have in the graph 14:14:55 ... it does not accomplish what could be doen 14:14:59 s/doen/done/ 14:15:00 q+ 14:15:12 ack lindstream 14:15:25 lindstream: i see no real problem with it, you can provide that explicitly if you want 14:15:46 ... other formats do not do the same 14:15:54 ... it would be a new thing for rdfa 14:16:33 Ivan: This isn't the same as RDF/XML or TURTLE - the only equivalent is GRDDL - in RDF/XML or TURTLE, you have a self-reference. 14:17:02 Ivan: The difference here is you have a source document (the RDFa document) and you process that to generate a graph (the RDF/XML or TURTLE graph). 14:17:39 q+ to ask about who is asking for this feature? 14:18:08 lindstream: rdfa is an amalgam of the things 14:18:21 ... it is something that is 'true' so it does not harm 14:18:26 ack manu1 14:18:26 manu1, you wanted to ask about who is asking for this feature? 14:18:35 q+ 14:18:52 ack ivan 14:19:06 Manu: Who needs this feature? What use case cannot be solved without it? 14:19:53 Ivan: I spoke w/ a company - this company retrieves data via RDFa - then they mix it up with a number of things - they're a search company - but they want to have information about the origin of the data that led to the indexes. 14:20:06 q+ on provenance tracking 14:20:14 q+ to ask how this is different from the larger problem of provenance. 14:20:48 Ivan: They wanted to have something that says "This is where the triple was created from" 14:20:52 lindstream: I do not see how that would help them much 14:21:15 ... a provenance tracking 14:21:21 <{base-uri}> a foaf:Document; dct:format "text/html" . 14:21:21 ... is necessary 14:22:06 ... it is up to them, ie, their processor, to add additional information about the origin 14:22:08 ack lindstream 14:22:08 lindstream, you wanted to comment on provenance tracking 14:22:12 q+ 14:22:13 ack manu1 14:22:13 manu1, you wanted to ask how this is different from the larger problem of provenance. 14:22:43 manu1: our company does this as well 14:22:49 ... we have to fetch document with rdfa 14:22:59 ... we have to track the provenance of the document 14:23:16 ... we have to have more than just the origin, like time, mime, etc 14:23:21 ... just adding that one triple in there 14:23:41 ... will not solve the issues 14:23:59 ... if we put this in, i do not think it solves the problem of provenance 14:24:06 ... it does not get you closer to the solution 14:24:25 ... you have to think about provenance in a larger sense 14:24:27 ack ivan 14:24:44 Ivan: I don't want to make a big deal out of it - the group isn't in favor of this. 14:25:16 0 neutral about it 14:26:21 PROPOSED: close issue-110 without any change 14:26:25 PROPOSAL: Do not generate a provenance triple in the default graph for RDFa Core 1.1 processors. 14:26:34 +1 14:26:34 +1 14:26:36 +1 14:26:37 +1 14:26:38 +1 14:26:55 0 14:26:57 RESOLVED: Do not generate a provenance triple in the default graph for RDFa Core 1.1 processors. (closing issue-110) 14:26:57 RESOLVED: Do not generate a provenance triple in the default graph for RDFa Core 1.1 processors. 14:27:50 Topic: 'default graph' vs. 'output graph' 14:27:52 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/109 14:27:56 q+ 14:28:23 Ivan: SPARQL is very specific about what 'default graph' means wrt. data sets. 14:28:44 Ivan: It's not good if we re-use the same terms w/ a different meaning - global change of 'default graph' to 'output graph' is a good change. 14:28:54 q+ on naming 14:29:03 ack lindstream 14:29:03 lindstream, you wanted to comment on naming 14:29:06 ack ivan 14:29:19 lindstream: I agree, default graph means something specific 14:29:36 ... 'output' or 'result' graph is possible 14:29:48 manu1: anybody is against renaming? 14:30:04 manu1: anybody prefers resu;t 14:30:58 PROPOSAL: Rename 'default graph' to 'output graph' in all RDFa documents. 14:31:02 +1 14:31:03 +1 14:31:03 +1 14:31:03 +1 14:31:05 +1 14:31:13 +1 14:31:19 RESOLVED: Rename 'default graph' to 'output graph' in all RDFa documents. (closing issue-109) 14:31:24 q+ to discuss test suite 14:32:09 ack gkellogg 14:32:09 gkellogg, you wanted to discuss test suite 14:32:37 Topic: @itemref attribute 14:32:40 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/105 14:33:49 Manu: I think this is a horrible idea 14:35:04 manu1: I have the technical issue with @itemref 14:35:14 microdata is a tree, not a graph, so @itemref has more use for them 14:35:17 .... it is unimplementable if you do not have a DOM 14:35:38 ... if I am a one-pass processor than it becomes really difficult if not impossible to do it 14:35:41 q+ on what's the use case (and why wouldn't @rel, @rev or @about solve those?) 14:36:03 ... for each @itemref you would have to rescan the document if you use sax 14:36:06 ack lindstream 14:36:06 lindstream, you wanted to comment on what's the use case (and why wouldn't @rel, @rev or @about solve those?) 14:36:25 lindstream: I do not see the use case, we already have powerful constructs 14:36:41 ... maybe if we have a real use case, I believe it would be better to have multiple abouts 14:36:42 q+ 14:36:47 ack ivan 14:37:21 q+ to discuss relation of @rev to @itemref 14:37:51 q+ to say that @itemref is the same as about="a b c", imo 14:39:33 ack gkellogg 14:39:33 gkellogg, you wanted to discuss relation of @rev to @itemref 14:39:45 gkellogg: I think our use of @rev addresses some of the things 14:39:55 ... ie, to associate different subjects with a given object 14:40:05 ... there is already many sources of copy paste issues 14:40:19 ... @itemref makes the meaning of attributes different 14:40:23 ack manu1 14:40:23 manu1, you wanted to say that @itemref is the same as about="a b c", imo 14:40:25 ... it is a whole set of problems 14:40:34 ... and I would prefer to keep away from 14:40:48 manu1: the about etc solves most of the problems 14:40:58 ... the about thing solves most of the issues 14:41:10 ... i do understand the use case in microdata 14:41:21 ... it is not a graph, so they need something like that 14:41:34 ... but I have never seen anybody using rdfa needing this 14:42:04 ... using references in rdfa solves the issue 14:42:14 ... you usually encapsulate that in a separate @about 14:42:23 ... I do not see the advantage of that feature 14:42:41 q+ 14:42:49 ack ivan 14:43:16 q+ 14:43:39 Ivan: We should do a write up of the last two issues and send them back to Jeni to see if she agrees with our findings. 14:44:27 ack lindstream 14:44:32 lindstream: I agree that a writeup would be good to explain 14:44:39 q+ to ask about the itemref resolving differently from different parts of the document 14:44:45 ... we should find out the real use cases and express those with rel/rev 14:45:00 ... I have never seen this need in any kind of representation of data 14:45:13 ... I cannot see any use case of switch vocab and use the same terms 14:45:24 ... it would make no sense to me 14:45:47 ... If there was a use case for which about should be extended to have multiple values, we should look at that instead 14:45:49 ack shanem 14:45:49 ShaneM, you wanted to ask about the itemref resolving differently from different parts of the document 14:46:12 ShaneM: with itemref if I refer to something from a different place it will be interpreted differently 14:46:25 ivan: that is my understanding 14:46:31 manu1: not mine... 14:47:13 14:47:23 14:47:42 .... 14:49:02 @itemref seems like microformat's include pattern 14:49:18 That's because @itemref was inspired by Microformat's include pattern. 14:49:59 ACTION: scor to check the @itemref functionality. 14:49:59 Sorry, couldn't find user - scor 14:50:00 http://www.xanthir.com/blog/b4570 has a use case which seems to make sense 14:51:12 q+ 14:51:12 tomayac: looking at the code in the box, if you have a table with information on something, they use the itemref to get the organization for the columns 14:52:04 ack lindstream 14:52:14 lindstream: from my quick read I am quite confident that @about would solve it 14:52:23 ... it seems to solve the problem 14:52:41 tomayac: probably using @about and explicit reference we should be able to solve the problem 14:53:04 lindstream: it is a good example, though 14:53:32 thanks, lindstream ;-) just a random google finding though... 14:53:34 -scor 14:53:47 +scor 14:54:27 tomayac: random googling often yields gold ;) 14:54:51 ... rdfa lists? 14:55:03 ACTION: Manu to respond to Jeni on ISSUE-105. 14:55:03 Created ACTION-92 - Respond to Jeni on ISSUE-105. [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-09-08]. 14:55:24 Topic: Publication timeline for 3rd LC of RDFa Core 1.1 14:55:43 manu1: the sooner the better... 14:55:49 ... we have a set of issues in the queue 14:55:59 q+ 14:56:13 ... we would like a final document at the schema.org document 14:56:21 s/document/event/ 14:56:24 ack ivan 14:58:04 @rev is deprecated in html5, shanem 14:58:12 Ivan: We want a document that is stable again - we have xsd:string issue, link/meta is only really applicable to HTML+RDFa, @itemref is done, rdf:List is important, @src is important to discuss, Default profile needs to be done (should they be profiles or something else), 14:59:28 Verified with my distiller that two @itemrefs will generate properties with different URIs 14:59:29 Ivan: We should be able to settle these in the coming 3 weeks - technically speaking, the document can be in a very good Editors Draft by the schema.org meeting time. 14:59:57 Shane: We will create a date-spaced editors draft. 15:01:30 q+ 15:02:11 gkellogg: it may be worth to add a note on the xsd:string that future rdf will change that feature 15:02:35 ack gkellogg 15:02:35 ack gkellogg 15:02:47 -scor 15:03:26 -tomayac 15:03:28 -manu1 15:03:32 -Ivan 15:03:34 -gkellogg 15:03:38 -lindstream 15:04:35 zakim, who is on the call? 15:05:16 On the phone I see ShaneM 15:05:27 zakim, drop ShaneM 15:05:52 ShaneM is being disconnected 15:05:54 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended 15:05:56 Attendees were gkellogg, +1.781.866.aaaa, Ivan, lindstream, +1.781.866.aabb, scor, manu1, tomayac, ShaneM 15:06:24 lindstream has left #rdfa 15:26:45 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 15:36:42 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 15:37:03 ShaneM has left #rdfa 16:04:05 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 16:33:22 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 16:33:57 ShaneM has left #rdfa 16:59:26 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 17:01:34 ShaneM1 has joined #rdfa 17:03:10 ShaneM1 has left #rdfa 17:21:24 Zakim has left #rdfa 17:27:01 trackbot, bye 17:27:01 trackbot has left #rdfa 17:51:52 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 17:55:48 ShaneM has left #rdfa 18:22:31 MacTed has joined #rdfa 18:23:25 sorry to have missed the RDFa call... 18:23:27 this page, from the PROV WG call which immediately followed, would have been relevant -- http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvenanceRDFNamedGraph 18:26:07 Thanks for the link MacTed... will look at it after I dig myself out from under this pile of work. 20:07:27 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 20:49:45 ShaneM has left #rdfa