RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference -- 12 Jan 2012

<trackbot> Date: 12 January 2012

<scribe> Scribe: STeven

<scribe> Scribe: Steven

Planning

Manu: Are we ready for LC, are we OK with the timeline?
... the first reviews are already coming in

Any Remaining Issues?

Manu: so are there any remaining issues?
... Gavin Carothers of RDF WF is raising issues
... they feel that we are too inclusive
... he's comment is about http: as CURIE
... we need to tighten up the CURIE syntax
... they propose the same as SPARQL
... so that people couldn't do http:// be detected as a CURIE

Gregg: One issue is the ability to have a CURIE with path information in it

Manu: They allow slash in theirs

<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about http

Manu: if it doesn't then we'd be in trouble

Shane: Why do they think http: can be detected as a CURIE?

Manu: if you declare http as a prefix
... they think that it shouldn't be allowed, and be the same as in SPARQL; I'd be OK with it as is

Niklas: I too am wary about http: as prefix
... I'd be interested to see how it is done

Manu: Two issues 1) backwards incompatible
... if no one is using it, then there's no problem surely
... angels on the head of a pin

<ShaneM> note that almost all of RDF is 'angels on the head of a pin'

Manu: 2) we wouldn't be using PNAME from SPARQL anyway
... so we would still have a different range of characters

Steven: Anyway, SPARQL did it after we did

Manu: heh. True.
... The rest seems to be editorial

<manu1> Steven: I thought we referenced IRI anyway, it's just called URI, right?

Shane: I don't think we can change URI to IRI

<manu1> Shane: The cases where we say URI, we mean URI - like in @href and @src

Shane: I agree that it is an editorial change

Niklas: I agree that @href and @src are OK
... but there are someplaces where we need to check the details, we use IRI where we mean that

Shane: In M12N URI points to ANYURI

<Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to talk about @href being a URL, not a URI

Steven: Which is the same value space, but a different lexical space IIRC

Gregg: HTML spec uses URL
... but there are open issues on that
... I'd be wary of depending on the range of attributes that we are importing
... point out that it is dependent on host language

Manu: Can we reword Shane along these lines?
... use IRI with a caveat

Shane: probably

Manu: But this would change our datatypes

Shane: No I think it would be OK

Manu: Any other issues?

[silence]

Manu: OK, discuss remaining issues next week, and then go to LC

Review of RDFa Lite 1.1 and HTML+RDFa 1.1 Updates

<manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-lite/

Manu: I updated these over the vacation

<manu1> http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/

Manu: Changes - conformance section cleaned up
... updated dependencies
... on other docs
... added link and meta to the body of a doc
... Added datetime and value attributes

Gregg: Not just @datetime, also <time> element
... gyear, gyearmonth, and duration I think

<Zakim> niklasl, you wanted to ask about Lite timeline

<Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to discuss <time>

niklas: do Google or schema.org need this to be a rec by some particular time?

Manu: I don't think so

[Ivan joins]

Ivan: We will have to decide the @resource vs @about at some time
... Jeni has a script to convert microdata on schema.org to RDFa Lite
... she says it would be harder if there was only @resource

<Zakim> manu1, you wanted to talk about TIME element processing

<niklasl> .. Jeni's text related to microdata and @resource: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/htmldata/raw-file/default/html-data-guide/index.html#microdata-and-rdfa-equivalencies

Manu: About <time>, people are asking for support, but it gets complicated

<niklasl> (.. section 2.2.2.3)

Manu: and RDFa is about attributes, not elements

niklas: See the link above from Jeni

<manu1> ack

<niklasl> .. correct link: http://www.w3.org/TR/html-data-guide/#microdata-and-rdfa-equivalencies

. Jeni's text related to microdata and @resource: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/htmldata/raw-file/default/html-data-guide/index.html#microdata-and-rdfa-equivalencies

Ivan: This is only about RDFa+HTML5, we should say we will come back to it when they are ready
... <time> has a rocky history

<gkellogg> http://www.w3.org/TR/microdata-rdf/#value-typing

Reviewers for RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1

Manu: Niklas was your s a full review?

<manu1> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-rdfa-core-20111215/

Niklas: No, not full.

<manu1> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa/

Manu: We need 2 full reviews by non-editors

Niklas: Given time constraints, I will do my best

<manu1> ACTION: Ivan to review RDFa Lite 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/12-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]

Ivan: I will do Lite

<trackbot> Created ACTION-106 - Review RDFa Lite 1.1 [on Ivan Herman - due 2012-01-19].

<manu1> ACTION: Manu to review RDFa Core 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/12-rdfa-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-107 - Review RDFa Core 1.1 [on Manu Sporny - due 2012-01-19].

Shane: I will do Lite

<manu1> ACTION: Shane to review RDFa Lite 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/12-rdfa-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-108 - Review RDFa Lite 1.1 [on Shane McCarron - due 2012-01-19].

Niklas: I will do Core

<manu1> ACTION: Niklas to review RDFa Core 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/12-rdfa-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-109 - Review RDFa Core 1.1 [on Niklas Lindström - due 2012-01-19].

<manu1> ACTION: Stephane to review XHTML+RDFa 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/12-rdfa-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Stephane

<scor> ACTION: scor to review XHTML+RDFa 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/12-rdfa-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - scor

<ShaneM> ACTION: Shane to ensure that the right working group name is used in each document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/12-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-110 - Ensure that the right working group name is used in each document [on Shane McCarron - due 2012-01-19].

<manu1> ACTION: Ivan to review XHTML+RDFa 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/12-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-111 - Review XHTML+RDFa 1.1 [on Ivan Herman - due 2012-01-19].

<ShaneM> ACTION: Shane to ensure that the list of working group participants is correct in each document. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/12-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-112 - Ensure that the list of working group participants is correct in each document. [on Shane McCarron - due 2012-01-19].

Manu: We need reviews of the primer, over the next months, no hurry

Publication Timeline

<manu1> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Jan/0003.html

Manu: That is the timeline

<ivan> Alternative view of the official homepage

<manu1> Jan 26th - WG resolves to take documents to Last Call

<manu1> Jan 31st - LC publication of RDFa Core, XHTML+RDFa and RDFa Lite 1.1

<manu1> Feb 21st - End of LC period for RDFa Core, XHTML+RDFa and RDFa Lite 1.1

<manu1> Feb 23th - Schedule Transition Call to Candidate Recommendation

<manu1> Feb 27th - WG resolves to take documents to Candidate Rec

<manu1> Mar 6th - CR Publication of RDFa Core, XHTML+RDFa and RDFa Lite 1.1

<manu1> Apr 1st - CR Implementation Reports in by April 1st

<manu1> Apr 10th - Schedule Transition Call to Proposed Recommendation

<manu1> Apr 17th - PR Publication of RDFa Core, XHTML+RDFa and RDFa Lite 1.1

<manu1> May 21st - Schedule Transition Call to Recommendation

<manu1> May 29th - REC Publication of RDFa Core, XHTML+RDFa and RDFa Lite 1.1

Steven: No time needed for dealing with LC comments?

<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about scheduling

Ivan: I don't expect any major ones

Shane: Short LC period here
... I expect some WGs will say that they can't meet the schedule

Manu: We've warned them already
... by email, warning of short last call; HTML and RDF took us up on it

Ivan: the timing is aggressive
... the Rec is scheduled for May
... charter is to end of July

<ShaneM> Even though this specification exclusively references IRIs, it is possible that a Host Language will restrict the syntax for its attributes to a subset of IRIs (e.g., <aref>href</aref> in HTML5). Regardless of validation constraints in Host Languages, an RDFa Processor is capable of processing IRIs in the attributes defined as such in this specification.

<manu1> PROPOSAL: Adopt the publication timeline as discussed on this conference call, taking RDFa 1.1 to REC by the end of May 2012.

<ivan> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<manu1> +1

<niklasl> +1

<scor> +1

<ShaneM> +1 I guess

<ivan> RESOLVED: Adopt the publication timeline as discussed on this conference call, taking RDFa 1.1 to REC by the end of May 2012.

RDF Interfaces, RDF API and RDFa API

Manu: Short of time to get these to Rec, also little interest in the group
... we lack people and time to do it
... so we propose to send them to a community group

<manu1> Steven: Normal practice is to turn these documents into notes, so they have a final state, then let another group take them over if they wanted them.

Steven: Normal practice is to publish as a note, and then let someone take them over

Manu: Problem is that API is incomplete

Ivan: In the note we can put in the status that it is not final
... but a note is a proper ending state

<manu1> ack

<ShaneM> I agree it should be a note

Niklas: I've previously expected Notes to be finished, so I share Manu's concern

<MacTed> +1 note (maybe "draft note"?) with clear caveats, possibly beyond just the status section (which many people do skip over, ill advised as that may be)

Ivan: There are precedents for incomplete work being published as a note

<manu1> ack

Manu: As long as there are big red warnings, OK

Ivan: A note is a final state, so that you know no one is working on it
... In the charter we had a Cookbook planned.
... so we need to remove that

<manu1> ack

<ShaneM> Even though this specification exclusively

<ShaneM> references IRIs, it is possible that a Host Language will

<ShaneM> restrict the syntax for its attributes to a subset of IRIs

<ShaneM> (e.g., <aref>href</aref> in HTML5). Regardless of

<ShaneM> validation constraints in Host Languages, an RDFa Processor

<ShaneM> is capable of processing IRIs.

Shane: Suggested text

Manu: Looks OK

Ivan: Answer to RDF WG comments right?

Manu: We discussed it before you joined Ivan
... next week we will discuss CURIE vs PNAME
... Jan 26 we resolve to go to LC

[ENDS]

- DRAFT -

RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference

12 Jan 2012

Attendees

Contents

Planning

Any Remaining Issues?

Review of RDFa Lite 1.1 and HTML+RDFa 1.1 Updates

Reviewers for RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1

Publication Timeline

RDF Interfaces, RDF API and RDFa API

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output