14:55:57 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 14:55:57 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-rdfa-irc 14:55:59 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:56:00 Zakim has joined #rdfa 14:56:02 Zakim, this will be 7332 14:56:02 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes 14:56:04 Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference 14:56:06 Date: 10 November 2011 14:56:41 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Nov/0035.html 14:58:30 niklasl has joined #rdfa 15:00:42 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 15:01:05 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started 15:01:17 +scor 15:01:31 +??P35 15:01:37 zakim, I am ??P35 15:01:53 +ShaneM; got it 15:02:09 +??P41 15:02:12 zakim, I am ??P41 15:02:15 +??P38 15:02:23 +??P42 15:02:25 zakim, I am ??P38 15:02:41 zakim, dial ivan-voip 15:02:50 +gkellogg; got it 15:03:15 +manu1; got it 15:03:16 voip: connections? 15:03:23 -gkellogg 15:03:33 ok, ivan; the call is being made 15:03:37 +Ivan 15:03:40 zakim, who is on the call? 15:04:01 zakim, I am ??P41 15:04:03 zakim, who is making noise? 15:04:09 + +1.404.978.aaaa 15:04:20 +??P53 15:04:33 zakim, I am ??P53 15:04:36 On the phone I see scor, ShaneM, manu1, ??P42, Ivan, +1.404.978.aaaa, ??P53 15:04:54 zakim, I'm ??P42 15:04:56 sorry, manu1, I do not see a party named '??P41' 15:05:02 scor, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ShaneM (11%), ??P42 (29%), ??P53 (20%) 15:05:06 +niklasl; got it 15:05:20 I don't understand 'I'm ??P42', gkellogg 15:05:34 zakim, I'm ??P42 15:05:36 zakim, +1.404.978.aaaa is me 15:05:41 zakim, I am ??P42 15:05:53 zakim, ??P42 is gkellogg 15:05:55 I don't understand 'I'm ??P42', gkellogg 15:05:57 +tomayac; got it 15:05:59 +gkellogg; got it 15:06:05 I already had ??P42 as gkellogg, scor 15:06:06 scribe: tomayac 15:06:14 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Nov/0035.html 15:06:23 zakim, fine then! 15:06:23 I don't understand 'fine then!', scor 15:07:05 Topic: Overview of schema.org feedback and path forward 15:07:24 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Nov/0032.html 15:08:10 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Nov/0044.html 15:08:29 http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values 15:08:59 ivan: email from tantek, we will have to look at link relations again 15:09:21 ivan: i start doubting that defaults make sense 15:10:05 ivan: …for link relations that is 15:10:32 ivan: finding the related issue after the call 15:20:09 q+ to ask about publication process 15:20:28 ack shaneM 15:20:28 ShaneM, you wanted to ask about publication process 15:23:07 ivan: rdfa 1.1 lite might become part of core, as a separate chapter 15:23:21 ivan: if everything else turns out to be too complex 15:23:30 ShaneM: this seems like an option 15:23:44 ShaneM: we also need to publish a working draft of 1.1 core 15:24:12 manu: vast majority of the wg is in favor of the property changes 15:24:20 manu: to support the schema.org use case 15:24:39 q+ to remind about "magnetic" @typeof 15:24:44 manu: we need two resolutions 15:25:00 q- 15:25:28 ivan: these two resolutions should be separated 15:25:52 ivan: my preference would be to publish lite as a first public working draft 15:25:54 q+ to question the processing difference between @rel and "@href-attached" @property... 15:26:00 ivan: and then i sort out the admin issue 15:26:40 ivan: let's get rid off rdfa lite, let's have the resolution 15:26:47 niklasl: we can get in the details later 15:27:40 PROPOSAL: Publish RDFa 1.1. Lite as a FPWD together with the next publication of RDFa 1.1 Core 15:28:11 +1 15:28:26 +1 15:28:28 +1 15:28:29 +1 15:28:30 ivan: modification of property is a hard issue 15:28:30 +1 15:28:31 +1 15:28:35 +1 15:28:38 RESOLVED: Publish RDFa 1.1. Lite as a FPWD together with the next publication of RDFa 1.1 Core 15:29:29 RESOLVED: Accept the modification proposal on the behaviour of @property and @typeof, as outlined in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/PropertyAndTypeof, modulo the technical details that still have to be sorted out 15:29:44 niklasl: quick question on order of publications 15:30:27 ivan: we should publish in sync 15:30:39 PROPOSAL: Accept the modification proposal on the behaviour of @property and @typeof, as outlined in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/PropertyAndTypeof, modulo the technical details that still have to be sorted out, to support the schema.org use cases 15:30:54 +1 15:30:55 scor_ has joined #rdfa 15:30:55 +1 15:30:56 +1 15:30:57 +1 15:30:58 +1 15:31:00 +1 15:31:09 +1 15:31:13 RESOLVED: Accept the modification proposal on the behaviour of @property and @typeof, as outlined in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/PropertyAndTypeof, modulo the technical details that still have to be sorted out, to support the schema.org use cases 15:31:13 RESOLVED: Accept the modification proposal on the behaviour of @property and @typeof, as outlined in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/PropertyAndTypeof, modulo the technical details that still have to be sorted out, to support the schema.org use cases 15:32:55 manu: two changes to rdfa lite 15:33:06 manu: one is the addition of content 15:33:21 q+ 15:33:31 manu: other is to just remove rel from lite, as it's not necessary for schema.org 15:33:47 q+ to ask about @value as well 15:33:52 manu: i looked through all rnews and all schema.org markup, and we don't need rel in there 15:34:09 ack niklasl 15:34:10 niklasl, you wanted to question the processing difference between @rel and "@href-attached" @property... 15:34:48 +tomayac.a 15:35:20 ack ivan 15:35:46 .. I'll wait to add me to when we get to the topic ;) 15:35:50 ivan: the content attribute in lite might be allowed everywhere 15:36:30 q+ 15:36:48 ivan: to avoid unnecessary discussion i'd like to limit content to just meta 15:37:03 ivan: concerning rel, there are a few situations where it is necessary 15:37:17 ivan: i would not bind lite exclusively to schema.org 15:37:38 ivan: chaining can occur, and we need rel 15:37:59 ivan: on the link and the a element, rel is the html attribute 15:38:06 ack gkellogg 15:38:06 gkellogg, you wanted to ask about @value as well 15:38:12 ivan: and you can also use property 15:38:13 q+ to say ICK about elements 15:38:28 +1 to what Gregg said! 15:38:29 ShaneM: part of the purpose of lite is to be simple 15:39:02 s/ShaneM: part/gkellogg: part/ 15:39:30 ack manu 15:39:35 gkellogg: it might be valid in a couple of use cases, but not worth to make lite too complex 15:39:54 manu: i am in favor of that 15:40:09 manu: the less things it contains, the more powerful it is 15:40:13 agree with gkellogg: the RDFa 1.1 Lite document should be as simple and straight forward as possible 15:40:23 manu: it's about the marketing message that 1.1 is easy to use 15:40:48 manu1: your chaining use case is still possible, ivan 15:41:18 manu: three elements are sufficient for the basic use cases 15:41:20 ack ShaneM 15:41:20 ShaneM, you wanted to say ICK about elements 15:41:29 ShaneM: i dont mind removing rel from the doc 15:45:05 ShaneM: we don't do special processing of elements 15:45:28 ShaneM: there is nothing about element in rdfa, the 'a' is for attribute 15:45:41 ivan: this means i have to withdraw what i said then 15:47:25 q+ 15:47:48 q+ 15:47:50 ack gkellogg 15:48:02 ivan: you cant put infomration in meta without using the content attribute 15:49:26 ivan: if i put myself in a webmaster's shoe, i'll hit the issue of content 15:49:32 q+ 15:49:42 ivan: what do i do if there's no mention in the rdfa lite document 15:50:02 manu1: i understand your point, ivan 15:50:19 manu: we need to be clear about the use cases and express how to address them with rdfa lite 15:50:43 manu1: my point is that i don't think that content is one of those use cases 15:50:52 manu1: if facebook need it, they have documented it 15:51:09 ivan: some examples exist in schema.org where they use link 15:51:31 gkellogg: regarding content and facebook, i am seeing the concept abused in ogp 15:51:37 ack manu1 15:51:38 ivan: let's not go there now 15:52:05 manu1: i still believe we leave it out until someone says we need it 15:52:27 ivan: we can put it as an open issue, we can add it later, as this is a 1st public working draft 15:53:10 PROPOSAL: Remove references to the @rel attribute from RDFa Lite. 15:53:14 +1 15:53:14 +1 15:53:15 +1 15:53:15 +1 15:53:15 +1 15:53:16 +1 15:53:19 +1 15:53:34 RESOLVED: Remove references to the @rel attribute from RDFa Lite. 15:54:15 q+ 15:54:24 manu: i'll add an open issue then 15:54:41 niklasl: shoudl rdfa lite mention that it's dedicated for authors, and not implementors? 15:54:47 manu: i don't think so 15:55:14 manu1: it just comes across as a simple thing 15:55:24 ack niklasl 15:55:32 manu1: the ones who care about the details, can go to core 15:56:24 niklasl: whether property should do chaining if there is a typeof attribute? 15:56:42 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/PropertyAndTypeof#Inconsistencies_in_the_.40property_chaining_rules is the case Niklas refers to 15:56:50 manu1: i think this is a bigger problem 15:56:56 ivan: not sure about that 15:57:11 gkellogg: the use case is that if you want to have an anchor 15:57:50 gkellogg: i think using typeof to really communicate you want to use chaining is a good thing 15:58:11 ivan: an empty typeof might solve this 15:58:16 This is the use case something 15:58:20 niklasl: an empty typeof is kind of strange 15:58:58 ivan: i think this is a question of balancing a very generic use case and being specific 15:59:05 something 15:59:24 ivan: (the second use case is the one i meant to put) 15:59:53 .. something 15:59:55 ivan: i would hate to lose that use case 16:00:49 lots of foaf things here 16:01:25 niklasl: i have to problems with tha 16:01:25 q+ 16:01:29 q- 16:01:36 q+ to end the telco 16:02:02 for example in the RDFa Core 1.1 document we do this: 16:02:02
Shane McCarron, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. shane@aptest.com
16:02:35 niklasl: property and rel are not symmetric 16:02:50 niklasl: when property behaves like rel, it doesn't really behave like rel 16:03:02 to Shane: this will actually work like RDFa 1.0, because the apperence of @rel switches the old behaviour 16:03:43 niklasl: i am sceptical about how people will parse links with a lot of statements 16:04:03 manu1: i have a feeling that whenever someone uses more than three attributes, it's most commonly wrong 16:04:17 ivan: shane's use case is mostly for the hackers 16:04:33 q+ 16:04:55 manu1: all this are arguments against rdfa, as using many attributes in one element causes complexity 16:04:59 ack manu1 16:04:59 manu1, you wanted to end the telco 16:05:05 ack gkellogg 16:05:25 gkellogg: probably if we were to do this again, probably rel would not do chaining 16:05:36 I agree - we need to be backward compatible for chaining of @rel 16:05:42 gkellogg: but we need to preserve the behavior for backwards compatibility 16:05:49 manu1: we're out of time 16:11:39 -Ivan 16:11:40 -gkellogg 16:11:40 -manu1 16:11:44 -scor 16:11:50 -niklasl 16:12:21 zakim, who is on the call? 16:12:21 On the phone I see ShaneM, tomayac, tomayac.a 16:12:30 zakim, drop tomayac 16:12:31 tomayac is being disconnected 16:12:31 -tomayac 16:12:31 zakim, drop tomayac.a 16:12:33 tomayac.a is being disconnected 16:12:33 -tomayac.a 16:15:36 ShaneM has left #rdfa 16:15:44 zakim, drop ShaneM 16:15:44 ShaneM is being disconnected 16:15:46 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended 16:15:48 Attendees were scor, ShaneM, gkellogg, manu1, Ivan, niklasl, tomayac 16:15:59 it's only w3c calls 16:16:13 ... strange... 16:19:49 niklasl has left #rdfa 16:24:24 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:24:24 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-rdfa-minutes.html ivan 16:24:45 rrsagent, set minutes public 16:24:45 I'm logging. I don't understand 'set minutes public', ivan. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:24:59 rrsagent, set log public 16:25:08 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:25:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-rdfa-minutes.html ivan 18:38:08 Zakim has left #rdfa 18:55:39 danbri has joined #rdfa 20:43:54 danbri has joined #rdfa