14:57:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:57:12 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/02-rdfa-irc
14:57:14 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:57:14 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:57:16 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
14:57:16 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:17 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
14:57:17 <trackbot> Date: 02 February 2012
14:58:59 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:59:17 <Zakim> +??P11
14:59:21 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P11
14:59:24 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
14:59:41 <Zakim> +??P16
14:59:44 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P16
14:59:44 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
15:01:27 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdfa
15:01:38 <Zakim> +??P19
15:01:47 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P19
15:01:48 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
15:02:34 <Zakim> + +1.612.217.aaaa
15:02:40 <ShaneM> zakim, aaaa is ShaneM
15:02:44 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
15:02:48 <ShaneM> zakim, mute me
15:02:52 <Zakim> ShaneM should now be muted
15:04:38 <Zakim> +Steven
15:05:16 <Zakim> +scor
15:06:03 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa
15:06:26 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Feb/0000.html
15:06:33 <niklasl> q+
15:06:36 <gkellogg> q+ to ask about updates to CURIE
15:06:37 <Steven> link to announcement?
15:07:05 <Steven> Found it
15:07:10 <scor> niklasl: should we talk about the issue about @id
15:07:16 <Steven> http://www.w3.org/News/2012#entry-9341
15:07:16 <scor> manu1: yes, we have to respond to this email
15:07:22 <Steven> I will add it to rdfa.info
15:07:44 <niklasl> … ISSUE-121: Using @id to set subject in RDFa
15:07:45 <Zakim> -ShaneM
15:07:50 <scor> manu1: we were clear, there was no support. he misread the straw poll as some people were interested in supporting it
15:08:30 <ShaneM1> ShaneM1 has joined #rdfa
15:09:23 <Zakim> +ShaneM
15:09:29 <ShaneM> zakim, mute me
15:09:29 <Zakim> ShaneM should now be muted
15:09:45 <Zakim> + +1.781.273.aabb
15:09:54 <scor_> scor_ has joined #rdfa
15:10:04 <MacTed> Zakim, aabb is OpenLink_Software
15:10:04 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it
15:10:07 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:10:07 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:10:09 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:10:09 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:10:35 <scor_> manu1: his suggestion on @id and @typeof is on http range-14 territory, complicated matter
15:10:46 <scor_> niklasl: there is also the magnetism of @typeof now
15:10:55 <niklasl> q+
15:11:10 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:11:14 <manu1> ack gkellogg
15:11:14 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to ask about updates to CURIE
15:11:19 <ShaneM> zakim, unmute me
15:11:19 <Zakim> ShaneM should no longer be muted
15:11:44 <scor_> gkellogg: shouldn't we make the changes to CURIE // and :
15:11:56 <scor_> ShaneM: we approved it during the last call
15:13:00 <scor_> niklasl: ShaneM do you want me to write a note about http:// conflict?
15:13:24 <scor_> ShaneM: is there a formal xsd for the new production for CURIE?
15:13:57 <Steven> http://rdfa.info/2012/02/02/three-last-call-working-drafts-published-by-the-rdfa-working-group/
15:14:11 <scor_> niklasl: instead of a note, maybe we want to add a section
15:14:21 <scor_> manu1: please suggest a text on the mailing list
15:15:35 <scor_> niklasl: there is already a regex in the IRI rfc
15:15:44 <scor_> niklasl: I'll try to see what we can reuse from there
15:16:01 <scor_> scribe: scor_
15:16:35 <ShaneM> zakim, mute me
15:16:35 <Zakim> ShaneM should now be muted
15:16:36 <manu1> Topic: RDFa 1.1 Last Call
15:16:38 <ShaneM> quite.
15:16:44 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/01/31/new-rdfa-drafts-published/
15:17:01 <scor_> manu1: we're in last call. everything going smoothly so far
15:18:01 <scor_> manu1: is a couple of people can write a blog post about the changes in RDFa 1.1, and let people know we're in last call so they can review the spe
15:18:01 <manu1> Topic: Plan for Candidate Recommendation phase
15:18:23 <scor_> manu1: we ask for two interoperable implementations
15:18:40 <Zakim> -gkellogg
15:18:49 <scor_> ... with Ivan and Gregg's parser we meet the minimum requirement for CR
15:18:58 <scor_> ... we have about 6 weeks to get these done
15:19:17 <scor_> ... once we do that, we have to produce a report showing that these parsers pass the test suite
15:19:32 <scor_> ... in RDFa 1.0 we use EARL for the tests
15:19:42 <scor_> ... I need to regenerate these reports for RDFa 1.1
15:19:55 <scor_> ... anyone has a better suggestion for creating these reports?
15:19:55 <Zakim> +??P60
15:20:02 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P60
15:20:02 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
15:20:20 <scor_> ... ok, we'll keep it the same
15:21:07 <gkellogg> XMLLiteral tests are always problematic
15:21:10 <scor_> ... your parser does not have to pass all of the tests. good as long as at least two parsers pass 100%
15:21:39 <Steven> Actually he said it differently: all tests must have at least 2 interoperable implementations.
15:21:47 <Steven> No need for any 100% implementation
15:21:49 <niklasl> q+
15:21:54 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:22:30 <scor_> niklasl: have you tried using regex for improving the test suite
15:22:47 <scor_> manu1: the test suite is on github, and you can run it locally
15:23:13 <scor_> manu1: XMLLiteral test can use some improvements
15:23:29 <manu1> Topic: Test Suite Updates
15:23:59 <scor_> manu1: HTML5+RDFa 1.1 need to be added
15:24:05 <scor_> gkellogg: SVG
15:24:10 <niklasl> q+
15:24:11 <manu1> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
15:24:19 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:24:32 <scor_> niklasl: do we test the difference in default context at the moment?
15:24:36 <scor_> manu1: no
15:25:29 <scor_> gkellogg: we might have some. need to check
15:26:13 <ShaneM> zakim, unmute me
15:26:13 <Zakim> ShaneM should no longer be muted
15:26:17 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about XHTML
15:27:35 <scor_> manu1: an update to the these suite we could do is test for pure HTML5 parsing (non-XML)
15:27:52 <gkellogg> q+ to ask about RDFa 1.1 Lite tests
15:28:16 <scor_> +q to ask about HTML5 parsers from browsers
15:28:21 <ShaneM> q-
15:28:28 <manu1> ack gkellogg
15:28:28 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to ask about RDFa 1.1 Lite tests
15:28:42 <ShaneM> We cannot require XHTML5+RDFa conformance for CR.
15:28:52 <scor_> gkellogg: we don't have any RDFa 1.1 Lite test. not sure how we would verify that something is not RDFa Lite
15:28:56 <niklasl> q+
15:28:58 <ShaneM> XHTML+RDFa 1.1 is its own language.  It is a superset of XHTML 1.1
15:29:24 <ShaneM> we dont do document tests - we do processor tests
15:29:35 <scor_> manu1: RDFa Lite is document conformant, not processing conformant (which is what the test suite is)
15:29:45 <manu1> ack scor_
15:29:48 <Zakim> scor_, you wanted to ask about HTML5 parsers from browsers
15:29:49 <scor_> gkellogg: we don't test what the processor graph outputs
15:31:04 <gkellogg> q+ to mention optional features: vocab entailment
15:31:08 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:31:31 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about xhtml testing and html5 testing
15:31:35 <scor_> niklasl: re. RDFa Lite in test suite: I'd be careful because processors should handle RDFa full
15:31:50 <manu1> ack gkellogg
15:31:50 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to mention optional features: vocab entailment
15:31:59 <manu1> q+ to discuss RDFa 1.1 Lite tests.
15:32:00 <scor_> niklasl: but we could add which of the test documents are RDFa Lite conformant
15:32:11 <scor_> gkellogg: agreed
15:32:40 <scor_> gkellogg: we don't have optional feature support like vocab entailment not happening unless some processor parameter is used
15:32:53 <manu1> ack shaneM
15:32:53 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about xhtml testing and html5 testing
15:33:51 <scor_> ShaneM: we don't care about attribute recording wrt to RDFa processing
15:34:25 <scor_> manu1: you're technically correct, but not sure this is an appropriate answer in the HTML WG
15:35:15 <manu1> ack manu1
15:35:15 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss RDFa 1.1 Lite tests.
15:35:47 <scor_> manu1: RDFa Lite test: not certain we should have RDFa Lite test. the test suite is for testing processor conformance
15:35:57 <ShaneM> I am opposed to any tests that indicate they are RDFa Lite 1.1.  We do not want to encourage people to only test their processors to those.
15:36:07 <ShaneM> since a processor always is required to process full RDFa
15:36:08 <scor_> ... validators are the tools to test document conformance like RDFa Lite
15:36:48 <scor_> gkellogg: it would be useful to identify which documents are conformant to RDFa Lite
15:37:11 <Steven> I agree with Manu
15:37:16 <scor_> gkellogg: ok
15:38:31 <scor_> manu1: optional features: 1) should we be able to get the processor graph and do queries against it? we do have a bit in the spec in RDFa Core (rdfa graph param in the URL)
15:39:03 <scor_> ... we could have a test for the rdfa processor graph (different test suite)
15:39:44 <scor_> ... do you think that would address your goal?
15:39:55 <scor_> gkellogg: struggling to find in the spec the mention of the url parameter
15:40:10 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#accessing-the-processor-graph
15:40:15 <scor_> gkellogg: not sure we have something like that for vocab entailment
15:41:13 <scor_> ... section 10.1 talks about how to do entailment
15:41:16 <ShaneM> See sections 7.6.1 and 7.6.2 
15:41:22 <scor_> gkellogg: but no web service param is defined there
15:42:14 <scor_> manu1: your processor could do vocab entailment and the test suite would ignore them when checking the output graph
15:43:06 <scor_> gkellogg: but no url param is defined there
15:44:54 <ShaneM> it IS in the spec
15:44:54 <ShaneM> Conforming RDFa processors are not required to provide vocabulary expansion.If an RDFa processor provides vocabulary expansion, it must not be performed by default. Instead, the processor must provide an option, vocab_expansion, which, when used, instructs the RDFa processor to perform a vocabulary expansion before returning the output graph.
15:45:43 <ShaneM> never mind
15:45:53 <ShaneM> we should add clarifying text that this is a URL parameter
15:46:05 <ShaneM> that would NOT be a substantive change.  note that the section is non-normative though
15:46:12 <ShaneM> oh - no it isn't
15:46:20 <ShaneM> sorry.  10.2.1 is non-normative.  reading too fast.
15:46:52 <manu1> Topic: Implementation Report for Candidate REC
15:47:00 <scor_> Topic: Implementation Report for Candidate REC
15:47:37 <scor_> manu1: when we come out of LC we have to show we responded to all comments from LC phase
15:48:37 <scor_> manu1: this is mostly paperwork
15:49:30 <scor_> manu1: anyone willing to contribute to the test suite?
15:49:33 <niklasl> q+
15:50:05 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:50:08 <scor_> manu1: everything is on github https://github.com/msporny/rdfa-test-suite
15:50:24 <scor_> niklasl: happy to contribute to the test suite
15:50:54 <scor_> manu1: idea: cancel the WG calls during the LC phase so we can focus on the test suite and implementations
15:51:14 <scor_> ... any objections?
15:51:29 <scor_> ... we can do most of the work via the mailing list
15:52:33 <Zakim> -ShaneM
15:52:37 <Zakim> -Steven
15:52:39 <Zakim> -scor
15:52:39 <Zakim> -gkellogg
15:52:41 <Zakim> -manu1
15:52:42 <Zakim> -MacTed
15:52:43 <Zakim> -niklasl
15:52:44 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
15:52:44 <Zakim> Attendees were gkellogg, manu1, niklasl, +1.612.217.aaaa, ShaneM, Steven, scor, +1.781.273.aabb, MacTed
15:53:11 <niklasl> niklasl has left #rdfa
15:53:25 <ShaneM> ShaneM has left #rdfa
15:53:47 <scor_> Steven: manu1: saying that each test must have at least 2 interoperable implementations and not saying that two implementations should pass 100% of the tests sounds weird to me
15:54:18 <scor_> the former means that technically there could be no implementation passing all tests, which is silly and not practical
15:54:31 <Steven> THe requirements i only that everything can be implemented; not that there be a complete implementation before CR
15:54:58 <Steven> It is only a proof of feasibility.
15:55:03 <scor_> if you want to build a tool that parses RDFa, you don't really care about passing a set of tests, you want to have the wider test coverage as possible (ideally 100%)
15:55:19 <Steven> I'm only quoting the rules here.
15:55:31 <manu1> scor_: yes, that's true... and that's what usually ends up happening.
15:55:39 <manu1> scor_: Look at it from a browser perspective... 
15:55:45 <Steven> Each *feature* must work in at least 2 implementations.
15:55:54 <scor_> Steven: I know, I was just surprised by this rule
15:55:56 <manu1> for example, some browsers many only implement box-shadow, others border-radius
15:55:57 <scor_> :)
15:56:06 <manu1> and keep in mind, it's only before CR
15:56:09 <scor_> manu1: ok, that helps
15:56:16 <manu1> eventually, everyone implements all of the features...
15:56:44 <manu1> the rule, as I understand it, is to ensure that the feature can be implemented interoperably... but not slow down the standardization process any more than that.
15:56:51 <scor_> but in the case of browsers, these features like shadow were usually non critical
15:57:00 <manu1> that is, if we waited for full implementations of everything, it could delay specs getting out there for a number of years.
15:57:27 <manu1> scor_: Some would say that box-shadow was absolutely critical for their business :)
15:57:33 <manu1> or border radius :)
15:57:41 <manu1> my point is that people can argue it both ways
15:57:54 <manu1> and in the event where people say that every feature is critical
15:58:11 <manu1> you end up slowing down the standardization process and you don't get a final REC until everybody implements everything...
15:58:15 <Steven> If W3C were ever to offer a certification service then of course that would require 100%
15:58:23 <Steven> but we're only getting the spec out so that people can implement it
15:58:33 <Steven> we want the spec to be 100%
15:58:41 <Steven> the implementations can then follow
15:58:46 <manu1> right... and the only requirement there is that it's implementable... not that everyone has implemented everything.
16:07:26 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
16:27:14 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
17:58:36 <bergie> bergie has joined #rdfa
18:20:24 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfa
19:42:50 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
20:18:30 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
21:03:54 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
22:48:23 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
22:59:55 <ShaneM> ShaneM has left #rdfa
23:07:21 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdfa
23:52:39 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
23:52:42 <ShaneM> ShaneM has left #rdfa