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...