14:10:48 <> :foo :baz 14:10:57 :baz a :bar 14:11:45 + +1.404.978.aaaa 14:12:16 zakim, +1.404.978.aaaa is me 14:12:16 +tomayac; got it 14:12:19 ack ivan 14:12:43 q+ to say he's concerned about big changes like this. 14:12:56 ivan: the whole thing is only if there is a property or a rel - without those the behavior does not change. That use is relatively widespread. 14:14:09 ack manu1 14:14:09 manu1, you wanted to say he's concerned about big changes like this. 14:14:40 q+ 14:14:45 manu: This is a very large change when this started out as something small. We dont have a clear grasp of how these changes might effect existing markup. 14:15:05 ... it is fine to talk about them, but to make any we need to understand the type of markup that is already out there. 14:15:17 ... there are some services that we could use to do a big crawl to see what is in use. 14:15:23 +1 14:15:33 ack ivan 14:15:34 q+ 14:15:36 ... I am afraid that by creating 'consistency' we will break things. 14:15:38 +1 14:16:45 ivan: I agree it is a concern. I can't judge how big it is. if we include the changes we are discussing in another draft, we will obviously need to ask for feedback from the community. 14:17:16 ... while playing with this I realized that if we have @property work this way it can make RDFa code simpler / easier (@property picks up @href). 14:17:34 ... this is important. The reason we are looking at this is because we have feedback that this is difficult to manage. 14:17:49 q+ to take a position - Gregg's changes, but only if schema.org adopts RDFa and if it breaks "less than 1% of the markup out there" 14:18:18 ... what gregg called chaining, which I would rather call the @typeof fix. If we look at the examples on schema.org, it is true that what you have to do in RDFa with @rel etc. is uglier and more complicated because of how @typeof works. 14:18:44 ack gkellogg 14:18:59 q+ 14:19:33 I don't think anyone is suggesting that we're "breaking" RDFa 1.1 markup. 14:19:41 Gregg: We need to be able to distinguish between 1.0 and 1.1 markup. 1.1 isn't a rec yet, so we aren't breaking things if we make changes to new behavior. 14:19:46 The concern here is RDFa 1.0 b/c 14:19:54 q+ 14:20:00 ack ivan 14:20:09 ... there is a concern about img and @src, but we have already broken that case. 14:20:23 manu: I disagree. We are not concerned about breaking 1.1 markup. 14:21:08 q+ 14:21:15 ... my concern is breaking 1.0 markup. If we can change the rules so 1.0 markup generates relatively the same triples, that's okay. Making changes that would do something unexpected to what is out there is a bad idea. 14:21:34 ... saying that all we need to do is detect 1.0 markup is very difficult. There is no announcement in much of the markup. 14:22:11 manu1: then when crawling the web for RDFa patterns, it should also include whether the version is specified or not 14:22:29 ... I am perfectly fine making changes if we can prove taht new markup idioms are not being used already in the wild. 14:23:05 ack manu1 14:23:05 manu1, you wanted to take a position - Gregg's changes, but only if schema.org adopts RDFa and if it breaks "less than 1% of the markup out there" 14:23:07 ... if no one is @typeof and @property on the same element, for example, then we can make that change. If it is in use out there, that would be bad. 14:23:08 ack niklasl 14:24:05 ..

14:24:06 niklasl: I agree with what you say. I hope we can make @typeof work. It seems that the @typeof changes could be done with minor edge case issues. 14:25:00 q? 14:25:15 ivan: This example is a good one. The way @typeof is defined in RDFa 1.0 is really broken. 14:25:34 (note that the above is same as

(in case attar order confuses our "intuition"…)) 14:25:58 I didn't have the same issue... (albeit one data point...) 14:26:31 ... (examples of broken usage - too hard to capture - ShaneM) 14:26:52 ack gkellogg 14:27:12 q+ to disagree about xmlns 14:30:00 ShaneM: Two people have now indicated that we're talking about RDFa 1.0 - that's just wrong. RDFa 1.0 uses xmlns: as a mechanism for defining prefix mappings... however, we do have xmlns in other XHTML documents. 14:30:11 I agree strongly with Shane on this 14:30:14 ShaneM: I don't think we can use it as a reliable switch. 14:30:15 XForms too 14:31:11 manu: there seems to be agreement about the basic change. 14:31:54 ... the other change - where @property magically attracts to the closest @src / @href - is less acceptable. 14:31:55 http://blekko.com/webgrep 14:32:07 q+ to talk about webgrep 14:32:09 q+ 14:32:14 ack ShaneM 14:32:14 ShaneM, you wanted to disagree about xmlns 14:32:22 manu1: http://www.commoncrawl.org/ 14:32:28 q+ to talk about Common Crawl 14:32:56 manu: there are some tools out there. we could start collecting data to backup the changes we are talking about making. 14:32:57 THe problem with that approach is that it misses intranets. HTML5 used that technique to say that we don't need @rev 14:33:02 q+ 14:33:16 ... we could also wait for google or yahoo to help us answer the question. 14:33:34 ack scor 14:33:34 scor, you wanted to talk about webgrep and to talk about Common Crawl 14:34:08 webgrep 14:34:18 http://blekko.com/webgrep?page=view&id=8638947e26c2cf16e32d3487fc187ac5 14:34:18 scor: webgrep doesn't allow regular expressions as of now. 14:34:41 ... it is possible to search for a tag, but you can't search for property and rel or whatever. 14:34:41 probably it was discussed before, but could Sindice be helpful for this task? 14:35:58 scor: commoncrawl looks promising . it isn't a big crawl, but it is free. you need to have your own amazon instances to do the crawling. 14:38:08 q+ to talk about what tests to do. 14:38:09 ... we should on the wiki work out a regular expression we would use for inspecting the web. Then when we do have access we can used the agreed upon regular pexressions. 14:38:25 i have some contacts to robert fuller from deri's sindice team. not sure who's scor's contact there. 14:38:28 q+ on if we need regexps for this crawling though? aren't xpath or css selectors enough (or even better)? 14:38:32 s/pexressions/expressions 14:39:13 ack Steven 14:39:16 ack ivan 14:39:28 Steven: I dont like using webcrawls to backup arguments because they don't crawl intranets. Also because it disenfranchises things that are not yet adopted. 14:39:54 q+ to talk about intranets 14:39:58 ivan: we are not proposing using it to drop a feature. we are using it to see if a change in behavior would break something. that is a little bit different than the HTML5 / @rev case. 14:40:17 ... the current situation is a little confusing. Before we make a crawl we need a clear idea. 14:41:00 ... the existing wiki is sort of a hash of ideas. Could we have a single page where all the @property related changes are spelled out in one place. 14:41:24 ... we could use that page for the crawl, but also to publicize our proposals to schema.org and the community at large. 14:41:40 ... we got a bunch of relatively positive reactions to RDFa Lite was published. That's good. 14:42:08 q? 14:42:10 ack manu1 14:42:10 manu1, you wanted to talk about what tests to do. 14:42:11 ... its possible that we will get similar feedback if we write this down concisely and promote it. 14:42:34 ... I have tried to implement some of the proposed changes, but it gets confusing after a while. 14:42:58 q+ 14:42:59 manu: I agree. We need to capture the changes to the processing rules. While we are doing the grep for the web we should look for everything we care about. 14:43:22 ... there is no such thing as too much data. 14:44:13 ivan: my problem is that there are combinations in use today on the web because 1.0 requires them. a search wouldn't reveal if people like using the awkward usage. 14:44:28 manu: I agree, but the purpose isn't to determine with people like the 1.0 usage. 14:44:44 ivan: I am not sure how far we have to go in protecting backward compatibility. 14:44:56 ack niklasl 14:44:56 niklasl, you wanted to comment on if we need regexps for this crawling though? aren't xpath or css selectors enough (or even better)? 14:44:59 manu: I am not sure either. But without data we don't even know what we are talking about. 14:45:22 ack scor 14:45:22 scor, you wanted to talk about intranets 14:45:29 niklasl: regexp might be hard to use. if we found a service to suport xpath or selectors that might be better. 14:45:54 scor: support for xpath might be bard to find. regular expressions are widely supported. 14:46:36 ... I agree with Ivan. We should lay down all the ideas. Next to them, record the regexps that would help identify if the pattern is already in use. 14:46:50 +1 to what scor just said! 14:46:57 ... w.r..t. using a crawl. Crawl data can help us make decisions. We shouldn't use it exclusively. 14:47:14 gkellogg: We can use the wiki. The data is separated now. We can split it into its own page. 14:48:01 ... w.r.t. regexp, we can probably do it with 2 regular expressions. Once we have the raw data, we could use xpath to do a finer grained analysis. 14:48:19 ... I can write up the regular expressions. I am not sure I know what is in Ivan's mind as to the @typeof changes. 14:48:36 ... Ivan, can you do a wiki page on those? 14:49:14 ivan: I think it would be better to have a single page. If gkellogg starts the page, then I can finish it (the timezones work out). 14:49:28 q+ to talk about sequence 14:49:33 ack gkellogg 14:50:18 q+ 14:50:28 ack manu1 14:50:28 manu1, you wanted to talk about sequence 14:51:59 ack ivan 14:53:41 Knud has joined #rdfa 14:54:56 q+ 14:57:05 ack niklasl 14:57:36 q+ to get a set of actions down. 14:58:20 Seems to be a sense that we agree to the @property changes but need to work out the technical details and ensure that we are not breaking backward compatibility too much. 14:58:43 ack manu1 14:58:43 manu1, you wanted to get a set of actions down. 14:59:33 ACTION: Gregg update the @property proposal - replace chaining discussion w/ new pattern - @typeof change. 14:59:33 Created ACTION-101 - Update the @property proposal - replace chaining discussion w/ new pattern - @typeof change. [on Gregg Kellogg - due 2011-11-10]. 14:59:50 ACTION: Ivan follow up on @typeof change that Gregg makes on the wiki. 14:59:51 Created ACTION-102 - Follow up on @typeof change that Gregg makes on the wiki. [on Ivan Herman - due 2011-11-10]. 15:00:50 ACTION: Gregg and Manu and Niklas to write regex patterns for RDFa "in the wild" markup. 15:00:50 Created ACTION-103 - And Manu and Niklas to write regex patterns for RDFa "in the wild" markup. [on Gregg Kellogg - due 2011-11-10]. 15:02:55 gkellogg: the @property changes include both @property/@rel and @typeof right? 15:03:31 scor: they just use @property, but we'll need to discuss the difference between @property and @rel 15:06:01 q+ to end the call. 15:09:25 Ivan will commit some changes ti the RDFa core document that spell out how processing rules are evolving. 15:09:26 -Steven 15:09:27 -manu1 15:09:27 -tomayac 15:09:29 -gkellogg 15:09:29 -scor 15:09:30 -Ivan 15:09:31 -niklasl 15:09:37 -ShaneM 15:09:38 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended 15:09:39 Attendees were manu1, Ivan, niklasl, Steven, scor, ShaneM, gkellogg, tomayac 15:13:54 Good luck with the surgery Ivan! 15:15:18 niklasl has left #rdfa 15:22:42 Knud has left #rdfa 15:25:48 ShaneM has left #rdfa 15:27:01 thanks 17:32:12 Zakim has left #rdfa