14:51:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:51:57 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/01-rdfa-irc
14:51:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:51:59 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:52:00 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
14:52:00 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
14:52:01 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
14:52:02 <trackbot> Date: 01 March 2012
14:56:27 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
14:59:19 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:59:21 <Zakim> +??P3
14:59:26 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P3
14:59:26 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
15:00:23 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdfa
15:01:09 <Zakim> +??P6
15:01:10 <Zakim> -??P6
15:01:10 <Zakim> +??P6
15:01:12 <Zakim> +??P8
15:01:21 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:01:21 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:01:23 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:01:27 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P6
15:01:27 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
15:01:31 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P8
15:01:31 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
15:01:46 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa
15:02:38 <Zakim> +scor
15:04:05 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:04:10 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:04:10 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:04:12 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:04:12 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:05:42 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Feb/0084.html
15:06:52 <ShaneM> zakim, what is the code?
15:06:52 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ShaneM
15:07:28 <Zakim> +??P20
15:07:32 <ShaneM> zakim, I am ??P20
15:07:32 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
15:07:56 <manu1> Discussion about clojoure implementation for RDFa Processor and how functional languages work wrt. the RDFa processing algorithm. @inlist tends to be the most complicated thing.
15:08:28 <Zakim> +Steven
15:10:21 <manu1> q+ to start the telecon.
15:10:40 <gkellogg> scribe: gkellogg
15:10:59 <gkellogg> manu: remaining issues, one we hadn't responded to
15:11:16 <gkellogg> … next, need to decide if we're taking specs to rec and publication dates.
15:11:19 <manu1> ack manu1
15:11:19 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to start the telecon.
15:11:30 <Steven> DST in two weeks time
15:11:47 <gkellogg> ivan: one update, Mike Smith answered with additional editorial comments.
15:11:49 <Steven> q+
15:12:03 <niklasl> q+
15:12:05 <gkellogg> manu: scor also asked for some additional editorial changes
15:12:30 <gkellogg> manu: we should discuss Mike Smith's suggestions.
15:12:57 <gkellogg> steven: reminder that DST goes off in the US 2 weeks before Europe.
15:13:07 <manu1> ack steven
15:13:08 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:13:08 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:13:10 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:13:38 <gkellogg> ivan: minor editorial changes can be made through rec.
15:14:03 <gkellogg> niklas: had wanted to add some clarity to CURIEs and '//' (assuming it remains editorial)
15:15:42 <gkellogg> ivan: shane, can you look at proposed changes?
15:16:12 <gkellogg> shane: their pretty trivial. Want's host languages to ignore certain content.
15:16:37 <gkellogg> … e.g., if a host language can disallow @typeof='', that would be a problem.
15:17:13 <gkellogg> manu: it would be a bad idea for a host language author to do that, but should be disallow it?
15:18:15 <gkellogg> … however, the certain working groups could disallow @rel and @rev, which could handicap RDFa in those languages.
15:19:01 <gkellogg> … the specific attributes that were suggested by Mike Smith wouldn't be a real issue.
15:19:48 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Host Languages are allowed to specify the valid lexical space in an elements attribute values.
15:20:56 <niklasl> q+
15:21:03 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:21:28 <gkellogg> niklasl: if authors want to support RDFa, shouldn't they need to support everything in RDFa core?
15:21:48 <gkellogg> manu: currently, the HTML5+RDFa spec says you need to implement all of RDFa Core
15:22:24 <gkellogg> … they may have a good reason _not_ to allow all attributes (e.g., @about is already used in the language)
15:22:43 <gkellogg> … doesn't affect the processor, only allows the HL to say it's invalid.
15:23:09 <gkellogg> +1
15:23:09 <manu1> +1
15:23:11 <ivan> +1
15:23:12 <ShaneM> +1
15:23:13 <MacTed> +1
15:23:18 <niklasl> +
15:23:19 <niklasl> +0
15:23:28 <scor> +1
15:23:45 <Steven> +0
15:23:45 <ShaneM>   "an empty string for the value of any RDFa attribute MUST be allowed as   conforming unless a Host Language specifically disallows the empty string   for a particular attribute"
15:23:59 <manu1> RESOLVED: Host Languages are allowed to specify the valid lexical space in an elements attribute values.
15:24:08 <MacTed> hm.  s/in an/of an/ ?
15:24:29 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-121: @id to set subject
15:24:39 <ivan> issue-121?
15:24:39 <trackbot> ISSUE-121 -- Using @id to set subject in RDFa -- pending review
15:24:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/121
15:24:48 <manu1> We had already resolved: The @id attribute MUST NOT be used to identify a subject in RDFa - http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-12-08#resolution_4
15:24:53 <gkellogg> manu: using @id to set the subject.
15:25:22 <gkellogg> … sebastian thought that there was a bit of support for it
15:25:38 <Steven> -1
15:25:53 <Steven> No!
15:26:10 <ivan> no way!
15:26:14 <gkellogg> … sebastian proponed that @id is used as a subject IFF @typeof is also on the same element.
15:26:22 <ivan> major backward incompatibility issue
15:26:32 <ivan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Jan/0099.html
15:26:34 <Steven> Re-last call
15:26:39 <niklasl> q+
15:26:45 <ShaneM> q+ about role
15:26:52 <gkellogg> manu: also an issue with the HTML group, as it causes existing attributes to be interpreted in different ways.
15:26:55 <ShaneM> q- about
15:26:57 <ShaneM> q- role
15:27:01 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss the role attribute
15:27:11 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:27:26 <gkellogg> niklasl: for the record, I do not want @id to be used as @about or @resource because of HTTP Range-14
15:28:07 <gkellogg> … My thought was that in certain scenarios, there could be a number of cases where @id could be similar to @about, but when looking to an implementation, it was clear it was a real problem.
15:28:19 <manu1> ack shanem
15:28:19 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss the role attribute
15:28:20 <gkellogg> manu: clear that WG does not want to support.
15:28:34 <gkellogg> shane: role spec uses the @id attribute
15:28:47 <gkellogg> … but, it doesn't set the subject for any other RDFa.
15:29:32 <gkellogg> manu: other reason to not tie @id to @typeof is so the author isn't confused between different uses.
15:29:55 <gkellogg> … however, having the role spec use it, weakens the argument.
15:31:28 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The Working Group reaffirms that @id MUST NOT be used to set the subject in the RDFa Core specification.
15:31:30 <gkellogg> +1
15:31:31 <ivan> +1
15:31:32 <niklasl> +1
15:31:33 <manu1> +1
15:31:44 <Steven> +1
15:31:51 <MacTed> +1
15:31:56 <ShaneM> +1
15:31:59 <scor> +1
15:32:02 <manu1> RESOLVED: The Working Group reaffirms that @id MUST NOT be used to set the subject in the RDFa Core specification.
15:32:03 <niklasl> (.. because that would conflate the document elements and the subject matter of the content.)
15:32:17 <manu1> Topic: Take RDFa 1.1 to Candidate Recommendation
15:32:36 <manu1> The RDFa Core 1.1 Spec: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2012/ED-rdfa-core-20120223/
15:32:38 <manu1> The RDFa Lite 1.1 Spec: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2012/WD-rdfa-lite-20120227/
15:32:40 <manu1> The XHTML+RDFa 1.1 Spec: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2012/ED-xhtml-rdfa-20120223/
15:33:00 <gkellogg> manu: note that there are two sets of editorial edits remaining:
15:33:13 <gkellogg> … Mike Smith's and Stephane's
15:33:20 <scor> manu1: ok
15:33:27 <gkellogg> … I'd rather make those after we're in CR to save time.
15:33:44 <scor> ShaneM: private email
15:33:54 <scor> I can send them to the mailing list
15:35:13 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Propose to the Director that RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1, and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 are ready to enter the Candidate Recommendation Phase.
15:35:37 <ivan> +1
15:35:37 <Steven> +1
15:35:37 <gkellogg> +1
15:35:38 <manu1> +1
15:35:39 <niklasl> +1
15:35:40 <ShaneM> +1
15:35:45 <MacTed> +1
15:35:47 <scor> +1
15:35:51 <manu1> RESOLVED: Propose to the Director that RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1, and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 are ready to enter the Candidate Recommendation Phase.
15:35:53 <ivan> clap clap clap clap
15:36:03 <ivan> q+
15:36:03 <manu1> Topic: Candidate Recommendation Exit Criteria
15:36:07 <manu1> ack ivan
15:36:28 <gkellogg> ivan: manu, I and shane have already tried to set things up to move fast.
15:36:45 <gkellogg> … telco at 9:00 eastern on monday to go over the transition.
15:37:11 <gkellogg> … this means that there is an additional process that there should be a week between transition request and publication
15:37:22 <gkellogg> … the earliest we can publish is in a week.
15:37:54 <gkellogg> … this should just be a formality. A week from Tuesday would be a good time.
15:38:34 <gkellogg> manu: for CR exit criteria, we need to decide what is required.
15:38:46 <gkellogg> … at least two interoperable implementations.
15:39:19 <gkellogg> ivan: to be more precise, we need to impls that pass every test in the suite, or for each suite, there must be at least two interoperable implementations.
15:39:38 <gkellogg> manu: do we feel we can meet it?
15:39:57 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:39:57 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:40:10 <gkellogg> ivan: my intention is to be fully green.
15:40:44 <manu1> Gregg: My implementation is all green right now... 
15:40:58 <manu1> q+ to specify which test suite we mean.
15:41:20 <gkellogg> ivan: question is what constitutes exit criteria.
15:41:37 <gkellogg> manu: only test suites which are absolute criteria.
15:41:40 <gkellogg> q+
15:41:50 <manu1> ack manu1
15:41:50 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to specify which test suite we mean.
15:42:11 <manu1> ack gkellogg
15:42:32 <manu1> gkellogg: My understanding is that vocabulary expansion is optional, but if they implement it, they must pass the suite.
15:42:46 <niklasl> q+
15:42:49 <manu1> Ivan: The goal of the CR is to prove that stuff is implementable.
15:42:58 <gkellogg> ivan: goal of CR is to prove that the spec is implementable.
15:43:19 <gkellogg> … it is a strong responsibility on gkellogg and ivan if we go for stronger requirement.
15:44:08 <gkellogg> … I think that for the "official" exit criteria, I would prefer to say that each suite must be fully green with at least two versions.
15:44:19 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:44:34 <gkellogg> … my (and gkellogg's) should be able to do this, but don't want to depend on this.
15:44:55 <gkellogg> niklasl: it is dependent upon some OWL rules.
15:44:59 <gkellogg> ivan: only a limited set.
15:45:24 <gkellogg> niklasl: an implementation that includes a complete OWL implementation would be able to pass the spec.
15:46:29 <gkellogg> niklasl: Java has an OWL reasoner, which could be accessed from the Clojure implementation.
15:46:58 <gkellogg> ivan: implementation needs to make a good link between RDFa reasoner and OWL implementation.
15:47:06 <gkellogg> … I would propose that we go for weaker case.
15:49:12 <gkellogg> ivan: if we use XML and XHTML, then we are fine.
15:49:34 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The exit criteria for the RDFa 1.1 Candidate Recommendation phase will be two independent implementations passing the XML1 and XHTML1 Host Language tests for RDFa 1.1 and RDFa 1.1 with Vocabulary Expansion.
15:49:51 <ivan> +1
15:49:55 <gkellogg> +1
15:50:02 <Steven> +1
15:50:04 <niklasl> +1
15:50:30 <manu1> gkellogg: There was one thing that was difficult to implement against each host language, but I think that was resolved.
15:50:32 <manu1> +1
15:50:33 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:50:33 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:52:08 <gkellogg> ivan: XML+RDFa and XHTML+RDFa are two different combinations.
15:52:28 <MacTed> four boxes: XML1+RDFa1.1, XHTML1+RDFa1.1, XML1+RDF1.1VE, XHTML1+RDFa1.1VE
15:52:48 <MacTed> each box needs 2 passing implementations
15:54:27 <gkellogg> ivan: we have about 280 tests, we're saying that each of these test must be passed by at least two implementations.
15:55:50 <gkellogg> manu: there was an issue with RDFa 1.0 where things would not pass due to XMLLiteral C14N test issues.
15:56:12 <niklasl> .. the host language isn't a factor once the basic triples have been extracted; the VE is only dependent on those triples.
15:56:25 <gkellogg> MacTed: we need at least two implementations that pass everything in each suite
15:56:26 <ShaneM> q+ to attempt to clarify
15:56:34 <ShaneM> q-
15:56:35 <manu1> ack shanem
15:56:37 <niklasl> q+
15:58:50 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The exit criteria for the RDFa 1.1 Candidate Recommendation phase will be two independent implementations that support each feature mentioned in the RDFa 1.1 Core and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 specifications.
15:58:59 <ivan> +1
15:59:02 <Steven> +1
15:59:03 <ShaneM> Note that we DO NOT have a CR exit criteria about the XHTML M12N module.  And that's fine.
15:59:04 <ShaneM> +1
15:59:05 <manu1> +1
15:59:05 <gkellogg> +1
15:59:06 <scor> +1
15:59:07 <niklasl> +1
15:59:09 <MacTed> +1
15:59:14 <manu1> RESOLVED: The exit criteria for the RDFa 1.1 Candidate Recommendation phase will be two independent implementations that support each feature mentioned in the RDFa 1.1 Core and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 specifications.
15:59:21 <niklasl> q-
15:59:34 <manu1> Topic: Implementations
15:59:42 <gkellogg> ivan: end of CR period is about the end of April, quite a long time.
16:00:05 <gkellogg> … this is because there is a minimal time between first public draft and PR, and RDfa 1.1 Lite came into the picture relatively late.
16:00:16 <Zakim> -ShaneM
16:00:17 <gkellogg> … I think we'll be done earlier, but this is the best time.
16:00:25 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
16:01:11 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:01:12 <Zakim> -Steven
16:01:25 <Zakim> -scor
16:01:39 <manu1> Manu: I will be updating librdfa to RDFa 1.1 (as well as the Python wrapper)
16:12:49 <niklasl> (my impl., in it's current haphazard state, passes 75% at this moment)
16:22:50 <niklasl> .. https://github.com/RDFLib/PyRDFa
16:23:51 <Zakim> -niklasl
16:23:53 <Zakim> -manu1
16:24:00 <niklasl> niklasl has left #rdfa
16:26:46 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
16:36:33 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:36:35 <Zakim> -gkellogg
16:36:37 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
16:36:37 <Zakim> Attendees were manu1, Ivan, gkellogg, niklasl, scor, MacTed, ShaneM, Steven
16:38:09 <ShaneM> ShaneM has left #rdfa
16:45:17 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
18:07:25 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
18:15:46 <ShaneM> ShaneM has left #rdfa
18:23:34 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfa
18:29:31 <manu1> rrsagent, bye
18:29:31 <RRSAgent> I see no action items