13:02:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:02:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-irc
13:03:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:03:01 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
13:03:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
13:03:03 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 57 minutes
13:03:04 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:03:04 <trackbot> Date: 08 September 2011
13:03:04 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdfa
13:03:14 <ivan> Chair: Ivan
13:03:52 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: meeting agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Sep/0034.html
13:12:44 <danbri_> danbri_ has joined #rdfa
13:47:46 <tomayac> tomayac has joined #rdfa
13:51:59 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #rdfa
13:57:48 <Steven> Steven has joined #rdfa
13:59:02 <lindstream> lindstream has joined #rdfa
13:59:15 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
13:59:22 <Zakim> +??P5
13:59:29 <lindstream> zakim, I am ??P5
13:59:29 <Zakim> +lindstream; got it
13:59:33 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
13:59:33 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
13:59:34 <Zakim> +Ivan
13:59:48 <Zakim> +??P7
14:00:11 <gkellogg> zakim ??P7 is me
14:00:25 <gkellogg> zakim, ??P7 is me
14:00:25 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
14:00:27 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
14:00:42 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:00:42 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
14:00:44 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
14:00:44 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
14:01:12 <Steven> zakim, code?
14:01:13 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Steven
14:01:53 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
14:01:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see lindstream, Ivan, gkellogg, MacTed (muted)
14:01:55 <Zakim> On IRC I see lindstream, Steven, MacTed, danbri_, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, SebastianGermesin, gkellogg, trackbot, manu, manu1
14:02:31 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa
14:02:53 <Zakim> +Steven
14:03:27 <Zakim> + +1.781.866.aaaa
14:03:42 <ivan> zakim, aaaa is scor 
14:03:42 <Zakim> +scor; got it
14:04:02 <ivan> zakim, pick a victim
14:04:02 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Steven
14:04:19 <Steven> Scribe: Steven
14:04:23 <ivan> scribenick: Steven
14:04:31 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
14:04:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
14:05:01 <Steven> rrsagent, make log public
14:05:08 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
14:05:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
14:05:13 <ivan> Topic: Issue 106
14:05:17 <ivan> issue-106?
14:05:17 <trackbot> ISSUE-106 -- Should RDFa support the creation of ordered lists? -- open
14:05:17 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/106
14:05:39 <Steven> Regrets: Shane
14:06:06 <Steven> Ivan: Comments came in from Jenni, asking if we would have syntax for creating lists
14:07:16 <Steven> gkellog: this is a resurfacing of an earlier question, for merging with microdata
14:07:23 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdfa
14:07:32 <Steven> s/log/logg/
14:07:53 <Steven> gkellog: Sparql makes this more relevant
14:08:15 <Steven> ... no collection attribute, but a member attribute to reduce syntax needed
14:08:32 <Steven> ... became too complicated with lists within lists
14:08:55 <gkellogg> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Lists#Processing_Rules_addition_with_.40member_alternative
14:08:59 <Steven> ... not sure of use case forthat, except for covering full Turtle
14:08:59 <ivan> q+
14:09:10 <Steven> ... wiki shows state of play now
14:09:15 <ivan> ack ivan 
14:09:18 <Steven> ... for processing rules
14:09:36 <Steven> Ivan: I looked at Greg's approach, implemented it, giving the second implementation
14:09:43 <Steven> ... shows it is working
14:09:57 <Steven> ... I am happy dropping my original pre-preocessing approach
14:10:14 <Steven> ... do we want this functionality in RDFa?
14:10:27 <Steven> ... if so, do we accept this approach?
14:10:37 <lindstream> q+
14:10:43 <ivan> ack lindstream 
14:10:49 <Steven> ... So do we have enough evidence for the need?
14:11:17 <gkellogg> q+
14:11:22 <ivan> ack gkellogg 
14:11:49 <Steven> gkellogg: There really has been a need to describe an ordered list in the past
14:12:11 <Steven> ... used seq in the past, may now be obsolete
14:12:28 <Steven> ... rdf uses linked list semantics, which reduces their expressibility
14:12:31 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdfa
14:12:37 <Steven> ... now being addressed in RDF
14:12:53 <Steven> ... otherwise used classes from ordered list ontology
14:12:57 <Steven> ... which is verbose
14:13:23 <Steven> ... schema.org examples show use cases
14:13:40 <lindstream> q+
14:13:42 <ivan> q?
14:13:42 <Steven> ... so is missing in RDFa, we need to add it
14:13:52 <ivan> ack lindstream 
14:14:01 <Steven> lindstream: Agree
14:14:44 <Steven> Ivan: Does drupal miss this, Stefan?
14:15:11 <Steven> Stefan: there are examples
14:15:33 <Steven> ... usually lists in drupal are ordered
14:15:45 <lindstream> Things that need lists: owl:unionOf, bibo:authorList, parts of the LD-API...
14:16:22 <Steven> ... another question - couldn't we add steps that rely on the ordering in the DOM tree?
14:17:31 <Steven> Ivan: I think the algorithm already does that
14:18:03 <Steven> ... Greg's syntax puts a flag on each element that has to be added
14:18:21 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
14:18:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see lindstream, Ivan, gkellogg, MacTed (muted), Steven, scor
14:18:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see danbri, scor, lindstream, Steven, MacTed, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, SebastianGermesin, gkellogg, trackbot, manu, manu1
14:19:51 <Steven> Ivan: I propose we ask the people here what we think, and finalise the decision on the list.
14:20:24 <MacTed> straw poll
14:20:38 <Steven> Ivan: So first questionn - do we think we should add a list mechanism
14:20:47 <gkellogg> +1
14:20:48 <Steven> s/ism/ism?/
14:20:48 <lindstream> +1
14:20:50 <MacTed> +1
14:20:53 <ivan> s/questionn/question/
14:20:54 <scor> +1
14:20:55 <ivan> +1
14:20:57 <Steven> Stevenh: +0
14:21:02 <Steven> s/h:/:/
14:21:11 <Steven> s/+0/+1
14:21:26 <Steven> Ivan: Clear enough
14:21:36 <lindstream> q+
14:21:43 <ivan> ack lindstream 
14:21:43 <Steven> Ivan: Second question: Do we use Greg's syntax?
14:21:57 <Steven> lindstream: Basic mechanism is good
14:22:29 <Steven> ... there are details that I am not comfortable with
14:22:42 <Steven> ... like repeating the predicate
14:22:49 <gkellogg> q+
14:22:53 <Steven> ... I need to try it out more
14:23:00 <lindstream> http://schema.org/docs/schemaorg.owl
14:23:03 <scor> gkellogg: have you looked at Toby's proposal for lists in RDFa? (I'm not familiar with it, I just recall he posted something a while ago)
14:23:12 <Steven> ... such as on Owl examples
14:23:18 <gkellogg> I did some time ago, and wasn't a real fan.
14:23:52 <Steven> ... but is the name 'member' suitable?
14:24:00 <lindstream> @listitem(of)? @inlist? @appendsto... (says what happens)
14:24:07 <Steven> .. it may not be; may be one of these:
14:24:31 <lindstream> inlist="owl:unionOf"
14:24:35 <Steven> s/../.../
14:24:58 <Steven> ... using @inlist it could then include the predicate
14:25:29 <Steven> Ivan: we should leaving naming to the end of the discussion
14:25:36 <ivan> ack gkellogg 
14:25:58 <Steven> gkellogg: We still have the uncompleted triples mechanism
14:26:28 <Steven> ... so in regards to @rel, there is no repetition of predicate
14:26:50 <Steven> ... I also looked at @member taking a value, and it does add some confusion
14:27:13 <ivan> +1 to gregg
14:27:20 <Steven> ... having another place for a property
14:27:21 <ivan> q?
14:27:25 <ivan> q+
14:27:28 <ivan> ack ivan 
14:27:51 <lindstream> q+
14:27:58 <Steven> Ivan: I didn't try to implement it that way, but I see Greg's point
14:28:19 <ivan> ack lindstream 
14:28:45 <Steven> lindstream: I hadn't seen the use of a hanging member, but agree that woul mean less repetition
14:28:53 <Steven> s/woul/would/
14:29:10 <Steven> lindream: Problem is readability; empty attribute bugs me a bit
14:29:44 <Steven> ... it really changes how @rel and @property work
14:30:41 <lindstream> <li><a rel="owl:unionOf" member="" href="#ClassOne"></a></li>
14:30:55 <Steven> Lindstream: Consider this example
14:30:58 <lindstream> <li><a inlist="owl:unionOf" href="#ClassOne"></a></li>
14:31:26 <Steven> ... I'llk discuss it more on the mailing list
14:31:31 <Steven> s/k//
14:32:03 <Steven> Ivan: THat's fine, we just need to make a decision quite quickly
14:33:34 <lindstream> q+
14:33:42 <Steven> s/TH/Th/
14:33:42 <ivan> ack lindstream 
14:34:22 <Steven> lindstream: The member processing hint may be problematic, since it is not backwards compatible
14:35:17 <Steven> Ivan: One radical thing to use would be inlist with a property
14:35:28 <Steven> ... a decent way of solving this
14:35:35 <lindstream> <li><a inlist="owl:unionOf" rel="related" href="#ClassOne"></a></li>
14:35:47 <Steven> lindstream: Here is a strawman
14:36:15 <Steven> Ivan: Leave this for the mailing list
14:36:35 <Steven> ... as for naming, I have no strong feeling. I see the advantage of @inlist
14:37:08 <Steven> gkellogg: I go with the consensus
14:37:23 <Steven> ... but adding a value would make processing rules more complicated
14:37:53 <Steven> Ivan: OK, discuss on email
14:38:14 <ivan> Topic issue 104
14:38:18 <ivan> ISSUE-104?
14:38:18 <trackbot> ISSUE-104 -- Determine if RDFa should normatively state that <link> and <meta> elements are supported in flow content. -- open
14:38:18 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/104
14:38:20 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
14:38:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
14:38:49 <Steven> Ivan: HTML5 allows link and meta only in the head
14:38:57 <Steven> .... XHTML2 proposed allowing them anywhere
14:39:19 <gkellogg> q+
14:39:20 <Steven> ... HTML5 microdata proposes allowing them in the body as well.
14:39:37 <ivan> q+
14:39:44 <ivan> ack gkellogg 
14:39:45 <Steven> ... should we allow it too?
14:40:02 <ivan> ack ivan 
14:40:04 <Steven> q+
14:40:40 <Steven> Ivan: I don't think we have to make the decision
14:41:00 <lindstream> q+
14:41:02 <ivan> ack Steven 
14:41:04 <Steven> ... RDFa can cope with it either way
14:41:38 <ivan> ack lindstream 
14:42:19 <Steven> Steven: Agree. We only need attributes, and they would work if these elements are in the content
14:42:31 <Steven> ... but we can emulate the effect of them as well without the elements
14:43:10 <Steven> Lindstream: There may be a rule that the elements are only allowed in content if they have microdata attributes
14:43:20 <Steven> q+
14:43:38 <scor> ivan: how about the @rev attribute then?
14:43:58 <scor> we (RDFa) do add it on top of the HTML5 spec
14:44:00 <Steven> Ivan: THis is an issue that came from Jenni via the HTML5 camp
14:44:00 <ivan> ack Steven 
14:44:10 <scor> even though it's not allowed in HTML5
14:44:46 <scor> I agree though @rev is an attribute and link/meta are elements
14:45:13 <Steven> Steven: We can still add our attributes onto the elements
14:45:14 <lindstream> q+
14:45:24 <ivan> ack lindstream 
14:45:53 <Steven> Lindstream: Can we reply to Jenni that for it to work we need our attributes to be acceptable on them
14:46:00 <Steven> Ivan: Yes.
14:46:14 <gkellogg> s/Jenni/Jeni/
14:46:25 <Steven> s/Jenni/Jeni/G
14:46:38 <ivan> PROPOSED: on issue 107: this is not what this wg can solve, the HTML5 WG has to allow these elements everywhere, the RDFa processing rules autoamtically apply
14:47:01 <ivan> s/autoamtically/automatically/
14:47:06 <gkellogg> +1
14:47:24 <Steven> Steven: relaxing the microdata attributes requirement
14:47:39 <gkellogg> s/+1//
14:47:41 <ivan> PROPOSED: on issue 107: this is not what this wg can solve, the HTML5 WG has to allow these elements everywhere by relaxing the restriction of being used with microdata attributes only; the RDFa processing rules autimatically apply
14:47:55 <Steven> +1
14:47:56 <ivan> +1
14:47:58 <gkellogg> +1
14:47:58 <lindstream> +1
14:48:06 <MacTed> +1
14:48:11 <ivan> RESOLVED: on issue 107: this is not what this wg can solve, the HTML5 WG has to allow these elements everywhere by relaxing the restriction of being used with microdata attributes only; the RDFa processing rules autimatically apply
14:48:15 <MacTed> s/autimatically/automatically/
14:48:17 <scor> +!
14:48:19 <scor> +1
14:48:22 <scor> s/autimatically/automatically
14:48:28 <lindstream> oh, that's 104?
14:48:30 <lindstream> q+
14:48:44 <MacTed> s/107/104/
14:48:51 <lindstream> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/104
14:48:58 <Steven> ACTION: Gkellog to write a reply to Jeni about issue 104, in line with the resolution
14:48:58 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Gkellog
14:49:00 <ivan> ack lindstream 
14:49:05 <Steven> ACTION: Gkellogg to write a reply to Jeni about issue 104, in line with the resolution
14:49:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-93 - Write a reply to Jeni about issue 104, in line with the resolution [on Gregg Kellogg - due 2011-09-15].
14:49:37 <ivan> Topic src attribute, ISSUE-107
14:49:41 <ivan> ISSUE-107?
14:49:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-107 -- Determine if @src attribute should be viewed in the object position instead of the subject position. -- open
14:49:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/107
14:49:47 <Steven> s/Topic/Topic:
14:49:47 <gkellogg> s/Gkellog/gkellogg/g
14:50:12 <Steven> Ivan: This would be an incompatible change
14:50:31 <Steven> ... Gregg you have a problem with this?
14:51:13 <Steven> Gkellogg: I see examples of this causing problems
14:51:32 <Steven> ... I believe it was added for the use case of license information for images
14:51:41 <Steven> ... which I have never seen
14:51:46 <Steven> ... in the wild
14:51:56 <ivan> q?
14:52:03 <scor> q+
14:52:05 <Steven> ... so not clear how much the backwards incompatibility would be a problem
14:52:07 <Steven> q+
14:52:18 <Steven> Ivan: I feel your pain
14:52:27 <ivan> ack scror 
14:52:50 <Steven> Stefan: We do use this @src as a subject in some cases
14:52:56 <Steven> ... but I do support the change
14:53:12 <Steven> ... we use it in combination with @typeof
14:53:19 <lindstream> q+
14:53:20 <Steven> ack sc
14:53:29 <ivan> ack Steven 
14:54:43 <ivan> ack lindstream 
14:55:11 <Steven> Steven: I opposed this originally, but CC may use it a lot; I was overruled. I think we need to consider the existing users before we remove it
14:55:24 <lindstream> <img rel="depiction" src="me.jpg"/> vs. <img rel="depicts" src="me.jpg" resource="#me"/>
14:55:30 <Steven> lindstream: Consider this example
14:56:20 <lindstream> <img rel="depiction" src="me.jpg"/> creates no triple today
14:57:12 <lindstream> <img rel="depiction" src="me.jpg"/> would create $currentSubject :depiction <me.jpg>
14:59:03 <Steven> Ivan: Let's take a straw poll
14:59:25 <Steven> ... are we sympathetic to @src behaving like @href
14:59:33 <Steven> -1
14:59:37 <ivan> +1
14:59:37 <gkellogg> +1
14:59:38 <scor> +1
14:59:44 <lindstream> +1 with reservation for me not remembering Ben Adida's needs
15:00:12 <lindstream> q+
15:00:13 <MacTed> +0
15:00:34 <Steven> [ADJOURN]
15:00:40 <Zakim> -MacTed
15:00:44 <Zakim> -Ivan
15:00:45 <Zakim> -gkellogg
15:00:46 <Steven> zakim, list attendedes
15:00:52 <Zakim> -scor
15:00:52 <Steven> zakim, list attendees
15:00:54 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:00:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html ivan
15:00:58 <Zakim> I don't understand 'list attendedes', Steven
15:01:00 <lindstream> lindstream has left #rdfa
15:01:04 <Zakim> -lindstream
15:01:10 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been lindstream, Ivan, gkellogg, MacTed, Steven, +1.781.866.aaaa, scor
15:01:19 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
15:01:26 <Zakim> -Steven
15:01:27 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
15:01:27 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:01:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:01:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html trackbot
15:01:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:01:29 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-actions.rdf :
15:01:29 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Gkellog to write a reply to Jeni about issue 104, in line with the resolution [1]
15:01:29 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-irc#T14-48-58
15:01:29 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Gkellogg to write a reply to Jeni about issue 104, in line with the resolution [2]
15:01:29 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-irc#T14-49-05
15:01:34 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
15:01:36 <Zakim> Attendees were lindstream, Ivan, gkellogg, MacTed, Steven, +1.781.866.aaaa, scor
15:02:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
15:02:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-irc
15:02:03 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
15:02:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
15:02:43 <Steven> regrets+Manu
15:02:45 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
15:02:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
15:03:33 <ivan> steven, manu or I will take care of the minutes cleanup
15:03:43 <Steven> regrets: Manu, SHane
15:03:49 <Steven> s/SH/Sh/
15:03:51 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
15:03:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
15:11:12 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdfa
15:18:41 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:18:46 <ShaneM> ShaneM has left #rdfa
15:19:18 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdfa
15:19:50 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdfa
17:03:51 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfa
19:04:06 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdfa