See also: IRC log
<fsasaki> checking attendees
<fsasaki> scribe: Arle
<Yves_> +Yves
<fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0018.html
Felix: We will table LQI discussion until tomorrow at 15:00 CEST.
<fsasaki> 1 p.m. UTC Thursday - LQI comments
<fsasaki_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0010.html
<fsasaki_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0034.html
I'm back. Internet died here completely.
<fsasaki_> tadej: not clear what are the operational consequences of doing option 2)
<dF> sorry, I am late
<leroy> I vote option 1
<Ankit> +1 for option 1
Felix: We, as a working group, would take responsibility for the six URIs, we would have a W3C prefixed namespace, and that would be a normative part of the recommendation. There might be other implications, but we don't know yet.
Tadej: Sounds simple, but there is uncertainty.
Felix: Agreed.
Jörg: We would also need to try to keep balance between the W3C and NIF branches, which could be hard.
Dave: On balance, option 2a is a
good thing to do anyway, but it is a risky way to advance ITS
2.0. We don't lose a lot by having it as a non-normative
features since we have few adopters.
... We need to keep it as a separate piece of best practice and
keep what we have done, the basic level that shows stability
and level of interest.
<dF> I disagree with Jörg's statement that W3C and NIF branches would need to be kept in sync
Dave: For Option 2, taking on ontology into the WG gives us an ongoing maintenance burden. We need to know how mature things are and how we would maintain an ontology. We don't have the same depth of experience in this area.
<dF> ITS2.0 would just continue using the uris as is in the W3C snapshot
Dave: Getting the ITS spec out risk free in as timely a manner as possible is the priority. We could do #2 later.
<joerg> I haven't meant sync but balance which is a difference.
David: I don't know what is meant by balance, but regardless of whether it is normative or not, we still refer to a snapshot of NIF in time.
Jörg: If you maintain a certain snapshot and NIF evolves, you'd need to see how you evolve on the W3C time.
David: But that is an issue for ITS 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, etc.
Jörg: Going to option 1 and using it as an example of a mapping to RDF, it has no risk and shows that it works. But I would argue that it does not belong in the spec, but somewhere else.
Felix: Back conversion is
non-normative and has been for some time.
... It has been *in the spec* for some time.
David: Option 1 requires extensive editorial work.
Felix: We still need comments from the RDF working group. If there is no ontology on the URI, put it there. But we need to see what they say. Based on today’s outcome, I would go back to the director and see what they say.
<fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0009.html
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to make an edit showing what changes option 1 would need for discussion next week. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/14-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-561 - Make an edit showing what changes option 1 would need for discussion next week. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-08-21].
Felix: I have asked the RDF group for feedback.
David: I want to explore 2a and think it makes the most sense from the standardization perspective, but I am not opposed to 1. If so, we could go to 3rd last call tomorrow.
Felix: Is the WG confident to go to last call?
Arle: Would it impact addressing Christian’s concerns?
<philr> +1
Felix: With option 1, the idea is to go to last call with option 1 (NIF non-normative).
<Ankit> +1
<daveL> +1
+1
<leroy> +1
<joerg> +1
David: We have enough agreement, let's more forward now and cut more discussion short.
<dF> +1 for 1 and LC tomorrow
<tadej> +1 for 1
Felix: Publications could be Tuesday, so we aren't losing much time if I can't get it tomorrow. I need to discuss with a few people.
<Yves_> http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#its-tool-annotation
Yves: I have one unrelated
question. I noticed in BlueGriffon that annotators ref, I
notice that the definition is a set of space-separated
references, but then we state that the results should be
space-separated and ordered. My question is when you write the
value, it doesn't need to be ordered…
... …but the parser needs to order it, correct?
... So it is OK to have an unsorted value, correct?
Felix: Yes.
Yves: Good. Then there is no problem.
Felix: I assume we will make the
publication on Tuesday.
... Reminder that the call tomorrow is at 13:00 UTC.
<fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0017.html
Arle: We won't use the regular GTM line. Instead use the ones Felix just linked to.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: Arle Inferring ScribeNick: Arle Present: Arle Felix joerg Karl tadej yves daveLewis leroy Ankit philr dF Milan Regrets: christian pedro Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0018.html Got date from IRC log name: 14 Aug 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/08/14-mlw-lt-minutes.html People with action items: felix[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]