IRC log of rdfa on 2012-01-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:25:37 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:25:37 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/26-rdfa-irc
14:25:39 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:25:39 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:25:41 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 7332
14:25:41 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 35 minutes
14:25:42 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
14:25:42 [trackbot]
Date: 26 January 2012
14:39:50 [MacTed]
MacTed has joined #rdfa
14:49:52 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has joined #rdfa
14:51:29 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has left #rdfa
14:58:53 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:01:00 [Zakim]
SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
15:01:04 [Zakim]
+ +1.540.961.aaaa
15:01:07 [Zakim]
+OpenLink_Software
15:01:11 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdfa
15:01:11 [Zakim]
- +1.540.961.aaaa
15:01:18 [niklasl]
niklasl has joined #rdfa
15:01:25 [MacTed]
Zakim, code?
15:01:25 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), MacTed
15:01:28 [Zakim]
+??P17
15:01:38 [manu1]
zakim, I am ??P17
15:01:38 [Zakim]
+manu1; got it
15:01:52 [manu1]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:01:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see OpenLink_Software, manu1
15:01:59 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:02:00 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:02:06 [Zakim]
+Ivan
15:02:20 [Zakim]
+??P24
15:02:20 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:02:30 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:02:30 [niklasl]
zakim, I am ??P24
15:02:46 [Zakim]
+niklasl; got it
15:02:52 [Zakim]
+??P27
15:02:52 [manu1]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:02:56 [ShaneM]
zakim, I am ??P27
15:02:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MacTed, manu1, Ivan, niklasl, ??P27
15:03:02 [Zakim]
+ShaneM; got it
15:03:33 [Zakim]
+scor
15:03:49 [Steven_]
Steven_ has joined #rdfa
15:03:50 [Zakim]
+??P32
15:03:56 [gkellogg]
zakim, I am ??P32
15:03:56 [Zakim]
+gkellogg; got it
15:04:12 [ivan]
scribenick: ivan
15:04:19 [ivan]
scribe: ivan
15:05:06 [manu1]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Jan/0056.html
15:05:25 [ivan]
manu: additions to the agenda:
15:05:25 [scor]
scor has joined #rdfa
15:05:40 [ivan]
niklas raised the issue on the fb curie-s
15:05:50 [ivan]
? we should discuss that
15:05:59 [ivan]
? stephane also sent comments, they were editorial
15:06:37 [ivan]
ivan: one more agenda item: should we explicitly disallow xmlns in lite
15:06:45 [ivan]
manu: shane, where are we with core?
15:07:00 [niklasl]
i've lost sound
15:07:36 [ivan]
ShaneM: niklas sent a reaction on the editing, made some additional changes based on his comments
15:07:44 [ivan]
? if niklas is satisfied then we are fine
15:08:02 [ivan]
? adding a note based on manu's comment
15:08:04 [Zakim]
-niklasl
15:08:20 [ivan]
.. giving us the possibility to chagne the curie without last call again
15:08:34 [manu1]
Topic: RDFa Lite 1.1 xmlns: issue
15:08:34 [ivan]
Topic: RDFa lite xmlns issue
15:08:51 [ivan]
manu: I do not think we need to say anything about it
15:09:14 [niklasl]
I'm not getting through to the bridge
15:09:27 [ivan]
? there is now validator.nu for rdfa 1.1 and html
15:09:51 [ivan]
q+
15:10:01 [Zakim]
+??P24
15:10:12 [niklasl]
zakim, I am ??P24
15:10:12 [Zakim]
+niklasl; got it
15:11:11 [ShaneM]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:11:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MacTed, manu1, Ivan, ShaneM, scor, gkellogg, niklasl
15:11:32 [niklasl]
manu: to answer your question; I might, but we'll get to that after this; right?
15:12:18 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's noisy?
15:12:29 [Zakim]
MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: MacTed (30%), niklasl (43%)
15:12:38 [manu1]
zakim, mute niklasl
15:12:38 [Zakim]
niklasl should now be muted
15:12:40 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:12:40 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:12:52 [scor]
q+
15:13:01 [manu1]
ack ivan
15:13:40 [manu1]
q+ to point out the issue.
15:13:50 [niklasl]
(I might have a working headset now)
15:13:58 [manu1]
zakim, unmute niklasl
15:13:59 [Zakim]
niklasl should no longer be muted
15:14:14 [manu1]
ack scor
15:14:16 [ShaneM]
q+ to talk about xmlns
15:19:02 [ShaneM]
q-
15:19:24 [manu1]
Ivan: Should we explicitly disallow xmlns: in RDFa Lite 1.1?
15:19:27 [ShaneM]
I am not in favor of this
15:19:27 [manu1]
q+
15:19:51 [ivan]
manu: we do not explicitly disallow eg resource
15:20:04 [ivan]
? therefore why explicitly refer to xmlns?
15:20:16 [ivan]
ivan: I understand your point
15:20:30 [gkellogg]
q+
15:20:37 [ivan]
ack manu1
15:20:37 [Zakim]
manu1, you wanted to point out the issue. and to
15:20:38 [manu1]
ack manu1
15:20:43 [manu1]
ack gkellogg
15:21:05 [niklasl]
q+
15:21:06 [ivan]
gkellogg: it is possible to use a host language that allows xmlns and does not disallow using prefix
15:21:36 [ivan]
manu: if xmlns exist, then the core processor must understand it any more
15:21:48 [ivan]
? if there a @xmlns: then I am not lite any more
15:22:33 [ShaneM]
q+
15:22:50 [ShaneM]
q-
15:23:02 [ShaneM]
q+ to ask why we care of something can be labeled rdfa lite
15:23:13 [ivan]
manu: we could add a note to rdfa lite if using @xmlns in a host language that is not used in rdfa lite
15:23:20 [manu1]
ack niklasl
15:23:36 [ShaneM]
q-
15:24:12 [ivan]
niklasl: rdfa lite does not speak about html5, it is implied I believe
15:24:58 [ivan]
manu: we can add a note explicitly that xmlns is used in the host language then it is not to be used for prefix purposes in lite
15:25:50 [manu1]
PROPOSAL: The RDFa Lite 1.1 document should state that if RDFa Lite 1.1 is used in a XML-based language, that the usage of the xmlns facility is allowed as long as it is not used to declare CURIE prefixes.
15:26:00 [ivan]
+1
15:26:06 [manu1]
+1
15:26:07 [niklasl]
+1
15:26:08 [scor]
+1
15:26:09 [ShaneM]
+1
15:26:10 [gkellogg]
+1
15:26:13 [manu1]
RESOLVED: The RDFa Lite 1.1 document should state that if RDFa Lite 1.1 is used in a XML-based language, that the usage of the xmlns facility is allowed as long as it is not used to declare CURIE prefixes.
15:26:15 [ivan]
RESOLVED: The RDFa Lite 1.1 document should state that if RDFa Lite 1.1 is used in a XML-based language, that the usage of the xmlns facility is allowed as long as it is not used to declare CURIE prefixes.
15:26:28 [ivan]
Topic: CURIE syntax
15:26:45 [ivan]
manu: issue is that fb uses : and we should allow that
15:26:49 [niklasl]
q+
15:26:56 [ivan]
? how we do that, we can leave it to the mailing list discussion
15:27:04 [manu1]
ack niklasl
15:27:15 [ivan]
? shane's note is good enough to avoid last call again
15:27:20 [niklasl]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/125
15:27:53 [ivan]
niklasl: apart from the change the syntax for : I believe the rdf wg comment can also be taken care of
15:28:30 [ivan]
? we can also take care of the mixture of embedded with http uris
15:28:46 [ivan]
? we cannot do the replacement with pnames, we discussed that related to issue 90
15:29:06 [ivan]
? we had examples for that
15:29:40 [ivan]
? what gavin wrote is the normal iris can be mixed up with curies
15:30:17 [ivan]
? i looked at the different uris, 70% use the authority plus path format
15:31:00 [ivan]
? i am trying to figure out to see if we can also change the definition of the curies so that it disallows '//' at the start
15:31:23 [ivan]
? my belief that this will prevent a lot of potential issues
15:31:39 [ivan]
? because these types of curies will not be seen as uri-s
15:31:54 [ivan]
? and I have not seen any use for a curie with a '//' in the reference
15:31:59 [manu1]
q+ to support not allowing "//" starting CURIEs.
15:32:20 [ivan]
? i also believe lots of mixtures will be avoided it
15:32:26 [manu1]
ack manu1
15:32:26 [Zakim]
manu1, you wanted to support not allowing "//" starting CURIEs.
15:32:37 [ivan]
manu1: that was a fairly convincing argument
15:32:54 [ivan]
? the concern we had with gavin's approach is that it changed too much
15:33:14 [ivan]
? what niklas is proposing are minor tweaks in the curie defintion
15:33:35 [ivan]
? the data that niklas referred to is convincing
15:33:46 [ivan]
? i cannot see any use them
15:33:57 [ivan]
? these are small changes on the curie syntax
15:34:08 [ivan]
? even before cr
15:34:22 [ivan]
q?
15:34:22 [ShaneM]
q+
15:34:26 [ivan]
ack ShaneM
15:35:01 [ivan]
ShaneM: while looking at the proposal i was reminded that the tag required us to add a note into the document
15:35:06 [ShaneM]
When revising a language that has historically permitted URIs in certain locations (e.g., as values of a specific attribute), to ensure backward compatibility, language designers SHOULD NOT permit CURIEs (or safe_curies) as the datatype in the corresponding location, but SHOULD provide a new mechanism (e.g., a new attribute).
15:35:07 [ivan]
? we put that into the curie spec
15:35:17 [ivan]
? and we failed to put that in this spec
15:35:38 [manu1]
q+ to address TAG note.
15:35:44 [ivan]
? i do not care if we make this change
15:35:57 [niklasl]
q+
15:36:08 [ivan]
? i maintain that the author cannot put a schema so that this will be misinterpreted in future
15:36:22 [ivan]
manu: what you say that the current algorithm is deterministic
15:36:33 [ivan]
? it never will be misinterpreted
15:36:52 [ivan]
ShaneM: it will not be misinterpreted in a way that the doc author did not mean it
15:37:04 [ivan]
ack manu
15:37:04 [Zakim]
manu1, you wanted to address TAG note.
15:37:15 [ivan]
manu: we should not put that into the rdfa spec
15:37:28 [ivan]
? we do not have curie at href or src
15:37:39 [ivan]
.. data
15:38:23 [manu1]
ack niklasl
15:38:44 [ivan]
q+
15:39:20 [ivan]
niklasl: ShaneM , you say that document author's curie will never be misinterpreted as an iri
15:39:22 [ivan]
? that is true
15:39:39 [ivan]
? but if somebody puts a iri, and a prefix will overshadow it
15:39:40 [manu1]
q+ to say this is a slightly different issue.
15:40:04 [ivan]
ShaneM: but I control those
15:40:22 [ivan]
niklasl: we have the predefined schemes
15:40:42 [ivan]
? the unsettling to me is where people do not control the whole document
15:40:49 [ivan]
? in companies
15:41:02 [ivan]
? so the markup can come from a social header scheme
15:41:06 [niklasl]
https://gist.github.com/1683227
15:41:07 [ivan]
? that sort of things
15:41:24 [ShaneM]
q+
15:41:26 [ivan]
? people have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot
15:41:32 [manu1]
ack ivan
15:42:13 [manu1]
Ivan: I don't know if this is necessary... if somebody that uses a string that looks like a CURIE or URI... the RDFa Processor will generate the same triples, but on different paths.
15:42:49 [manu1]
Ivan: We have been losing an enormous amount of energy and time on this... the changes in the core document is minimal if we allow ':' and/or disallowing '//'
15:43:12 [manu1]
Ivan: We still refer to the RFC for the details. I propose that we should make these changes and move ahead.
15:43:16 [manu1]
ack manu1
15:43:16 [Zakim]
manu1, you wanted to say this is a slightly different issue.
15:43:43 [ivan]
manu: it is important to note is that that an rdfa processor can misinterpret something or not
15:43:54 [ivan]
? it is preventing the document authors from themeselves
15:44:10 [ShaneM]
q-
15:44:30 [ivan]
? if we make no change, then the danger is 52% of the case the authors accidentally creates invalid data
15:44:56 [ivan]
? if we add the change, we will prevent the authoring mistakes
15:45:11 [ShaneM]
for the record I note that I agree with Niklaus, and the risk is far higher than just schemes that have an authority section. consider 'widget'. 'widget:foo' is a curie, but there is a widget scheme out there that has no authority section anyway. so it will be confused.
15:45:14 [MacTed]
can we get proposal as Ivan worded?
15:45:28 [MacTed]
resolve and move on...
15:45:39 [ShaneM]
here's my wording in the spec: <p class="note">The working group is currently examining the productions
15:45:39 [ShaneM]
for CURIE below in light of recent comments received from the RDF
15:45:39 [ShaneM]
Working Group and members of the RDF Web Applications Working
15:45:39 [ShaneM]
Group. It is possible that there will be minor changes to the production
15:45:39 [ShaneM]
rules below in the near future, and that these changes will be
15:45:41 [ShaneM]
backward <em>incompatible</em>. However, any such incompatibility will be
15:45:42 [ShaneM]
limited to edge cases.</p>
15:46:13 [ivan]
PROPOSED: make the change on the CURIE definition, according to Niklas' mail, to avoid leading '//' and allow for ':'
15:46:21 [MacTed]
+1
15:46:23 [manu1]
+1
15:46:23 [niklasl]
+1
15:46:27 [ivan]
+1
15:46:29 [gkellogg]
+1
15:46:39 [ShaneM]
+1 if there is actually BNF
15:46:40 [scor]
+1
15:46:43 [ivan]
RESOLVED: make the change on the CURIE definition, according to Niklas' mail, to avoid leading '//' and allow for ':'
15:47:21 [niklasl]
option C at the end of: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Jan/0067.html
15:47:33 [niklasl]
curie ::= [ [ prefix ] ':' ] reference
15:47:48 [niklasl]
reference ::= ( ipath-absolute / ipath-rootless / ipath-empty ) [ "?" iquery ] [ "#" ifragment ]
15:48:21 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:48:21 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
15:48:27 [niklasl]
.. definitions from [RFC3987]
15:49:28 [niklasl]
.. i* definitions from [RFC3987]
15:49:50 [ivan]
Topic: LC publication
15:51:40 [manu1]
PROPOSAL: Take RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to Last Call with a publication date of January 31st 2012, with a Last Call Duration of 3 weeks, ending on February 21st 2012.
15:51:53 [gkellogg]
+1
15:51:54 [niklasl]
+1
15:51:54 [ivan]
+1
15:51:56 [scor]
+1
15:51:56 [MacTed]
+1
15:51:56 [manu1]
+1
15:51:57 [ShaneM]
+1
15:52:31 [scor]
ShaneM: you will review my changes before sending to to LC right?
15:52:33 [manu1]
RESOLVED: Take RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to Last Call with a publication date of January 31st 2012, with a Last Call Duration of 3 weeks, ending on February 21st 2012.
15:53:33 [manu1]
Topic: Implementations
15:53:53 [gkellogg]
I have an implementation
15:53:54 [ivan]
manu: who is working on rdfa 1.1 implementations?
15:54:01 [MacTed]
"implementation" means so many things
15:54:06 [niklasl]
I have started on one
15:54:17 [ShaneM]
I am planning to update SPREAD
15:54:27 [ivan]
manu, ivan, gregg, shane
15:54:32 [niklasl]
Clojure
15:55:03 [gkellogg]
We really need a JavaScript implementation, though.
15:55:50 [ivan]
manu: do people feel they can finish it before april
15:55:57 [niklasl]
.. gregg: I could try to run it through ClojureScript. :) But I believe that Antonio Garotte has one in the making?
15:57:21 [niklasl]
(my rough clojure work is at https://github.com/niklasl/clj-rdfa btw; note that it's still quite incomplete)
15:58:17 [ShaneM]
q+
15:58:33 [manu1]
ack shanem
16:00:06 [manu1]
ack shanem
16:01:35 [Zakim]
-ShaneM
16:01:39 [Zakim]
-MacTed
16:01:43 [Zakim]
-gkellogg
16:02:01 [Zakim]
-scor
16:02:54 [niklasl]
(still here, so you don't think I'm evesdropping ;)
16:19:27 [Zakim]
-manu1
16:19:27 [Zakim]
-Ivan
16:19:30 [Zakim]
-niklasl
16:19:31 [Zakim]
SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
16:19:33 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.540.961.aaaa, manu1, Ivan, MacTed, niklasl, ShaneM, scor, gkellogg
16:22:15 [niklasl]
niklasl has left #rdfa
16:59:08 [trackbot]
trackbot has joined #rdfa
17:29:08 [trackbot]
trackbot has joined #rdfa
17:38:04 [trackbot]
trackbot has joined #rdfa
18:07:32 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfa
18:09:36 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has left #rdfa
18:29:12 [danbri]
hi folks. I asked a Q here the other day, then my laptop crashed out before I could check for answers. Issue is rdfs:comment whose content contains markup (html a href...). Is that expressible in rdfa 1.1 nicely?
18:29:52 [gkellogg]
You missed my reply then, try adding @datatype=rdf:XMLLiteral to your <span>
18:31:54 [gkellogg]
This is from the test suite: http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/test-cases/xhtml1/rdfa1.1/0198.xhtml
18:32:43 [gkellogg]
Difference between RDFa 1.0 and RDFa 1.1 is that @datatype is required, and the processor will continue to parse elements contained within the element.
18:39:37 [gkellogg]
danbri: You can find tests for many RDFa patterns in the test suite http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
18:51:53 [danbri]
ah, thanks
18:52:32 [danbri]
humm not sure what makes most sense for us w/ schema.org; most comment properties are just plain text
18:53:02 [danbri]
i'm hoping to keep the schema dump nice and simple 'lite' as a bit of 'this stuff isn't so complex' advertising...
18:53:11 [danbri]
so maybe best to strip out the markup
18:53:39 [danbri]
if a 1.1 parser finds markup, does it blue-screen-of-death?
18:53:50 [danbri]
i mean, if the @datatype=rdf:XMLLiteral is missing
18:54:34 [gkellogg]
No, it just gets the text content.
18:55:09 [gkellogg]
Note that Microdata has _no_ way to get markup content, so if you're looking for equivalence, you'll probably need to avoid markup; but there are cases where it may be important.
18:55:28 [gkellogg]
E.g., E = MC<sup>2</sup>
19:22:43 [danbri]
microdata's not my fault ;)
19:22:54 [danbri]
'just gets the text content ' is fine actually...