10:02:00 <ivan> Present: Manu, Shane, Ivan, Nathan, Benjamin
10:02:00 <ivan> scribenick: ivan
(Scribe set to Ivan Herman)
10:03:00 <ivan> Scribe: Ivan
10:03:00 <manu> Regrets: Knud, MarkB, Steven
10:04:00 <manu> Topic: XHTML+RDFa Last Call
10:04:00 <manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/ED-xhtml-rdfa-20101101/
Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/ED-xhtml-rdfa-20101101/ ←
10:05:00 <ivan> manu: shane, are there any issues that have not been addressed?
Manu Sporny: shane, are there any issues that have not been addressed? ←
10:05:00 <ivan> ShaneM: mark had a concern in section 3 of the document
Shane McCarron: mark had a concern in section 3 of the document ←
10:05:00 <ivan> ... there are bulleted 'modifications' or additions to the processing rules
... there are bulleted 'modifications' or additions to the processing rules ←
10:06:00 <ivan> ... the last two he thinks needs additional clarification
... the last two he thinks needs additional clarification ←
10:06:00 <ivan> ... I think they are already covered in step 7, so it is not necessary
... I think they are already covered in step 7, so it is not necessary ←
10:06:00 <ivan> manu: are there test cases
Manu Sporny: are there test cases ←
10:06:00 <ivan> ShaneM: these are not new changes
Shane McCarron: these are not new changes ←
10:06:00 <ivan> ... so we should
... so we should ←
10:07:00 <ivan> manu: this particular issue does not have anything to do with the <html> element, as you say
Manu Sporny: this particular issue does not have anything to do with the <html> element, as you say ←
10:07:00 <ivan> .. anyone having a deep concern about not putting more words here?
.. anyone having a deep concern about not putting more words here? ←
10:07:00 <ivan> ... it would be editorial
... it would be editorial ←
10:07:00 <ivan> ShaneM: not sure
Shane McCarron: not sure ←
10:08:00 <ivan> manu: we are not changing the way the spec works, we just clarify what is happening, no design changes
Manu Sporny: we are not changing the way the spec works, we just clarify what is happening, no design changes ←
10:08:00 <ivan> ... do you agree
... do you agree ←
10:08:00 <ivan> ShaneM: I cannot imagine what change we would make and that would change anyone's processor
Shane McCarron: I cannot imagine what change we would make and that would change anyone's processor ←
10:08:00 <ivan> ... in this sense you are right
... in this sense you are right ←
10:08:00 <ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#sequence
Shane McCarron: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#sequence ←
10:09:00 <ivan> ... but the text in rdfa core, section 6 I think it explicitly deals with typeof
... but the text in rdfa core, section 6 I think it explicitly deals with typeof ←
10:09:00 <ivan> ... mark was saying that we need to say where in step 7 these additional processing rules come into play
... mark was saying that we need to say where in step 7 these additional processing rules come into play ←
10:09:00 <ivan> ... but I think it is very clear
... but I think it is very clear ←
10:11:00 <manu> Sequence, step #6: If no URI is provided by a resource attribute, then the first match from the following rules will apply:
Manu Sporny: Sequence, step #6: If no URI is provided by a resource attribute, then the first match from the following rules will apply: ←
10:11:00 <manu> if @typeof is present, then new subject is set to be a newly created bnode.
Manu Sporny: if @typeof is present, then new subject is set to be a newly created bnode. ←
10:11:00 <manu> XHTML+RDFa 1.1 says: In section 7.5, processing step 6, if no URI is provided by a resource attribute (e.g., @about, @href, @resource, or @src), then first check to see if the element is the head or body element. If it is, then act as if there is an empty @about present, and process it according to the rule for @about.
Manu Sporny: XHTML+RDFa 1.1 says: In section 7.5, processing step 6, if no URI is provided by a resource attribute (e.g., @about, @href, @resource, or @src), then first check to see if the element is the head or body element. If it is, then act as if there is an empty @about present, and process it according to the rule for @about. ←
10:11:00 <ivan> manu: it seems to be perfectly fine
Manu Sporny: it seems to be perfectly fine ←
10:12:00 <ivan> ... I agree with you shane there is no issue here
... I agree with you shane there is no issue here ←
10:12:00 <ivan> ShaneM: that was the only issue that I know of
Shane McCarron: that was the only issue that I know of ←
10:13:00 <ivan> manu: there was an issue in which order we process?
Manu Sporny: there was an issue in which order we process? ←
10:13:00 <ivan> .. only <base> carries over to the body
.. only <base> carries over to the body ←
10:13:00 <ivan> ... from head
... from head ←
10:14:00 <ivan> manu: any issues? any reason why we should not take XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to last call?
Manu Sporny: any issues? any reason why we should not take XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to last call? ←
10:15:00 <manu> PROPOSAL: Promote XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to Last Call with a publication date of November 9th, 2010.
PROPOSED: Promote XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to Last Call with a publication date of November 9th, 2010. ←
10:16:00 <ivan> Ivan: +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
10:16:00 <manu> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
10:16:00 <nathan> +1
Nathan Rixham: +1 ←
10:16:00 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
10:16:00 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
10:16:00 <manu> Mark Birbeck: +1 - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Nov/0026.html
Manu Sporny: Mark Birbeck: +1 - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Nov/0026.html ←
10:17:00 <manu> Knud Möller: +1 - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Nov/0027.html
Manu Sporny: Knud Möller: +1 - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Nov/0027.html ←
10:17:00 <ivan> RESOLVED: Promote XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to Last Call with a publication date of November 9th, 2010.
RESOLVED: Promote XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to Last Call with a publication date of November 9th, 2010. ←
10:18:00 <ivan> Topic: HTML+RDFa Last Call plans
10:18:00 <ivan> manu: for plan for HTML5+RDFa: the plan is to clean up the bugs on dec 5, and the idea is to put the documents to LC in early spring
Manu Sporny: for plan for HTML5+RDFa: the plan is to clean up the bugs on dec 5, and the idea is to put the documents to LC in early spring ←
10:18:00 <ivan> ... the biggest issue we have is that people that are trying to pull us into the fight into the HTML discussion so that RDFa processors should generate accessibilty triples
... the biggest issue we have is that people that are trying to pull us into the fight into the HTML discussion so that RDFa processors should generate accessibilty triples ←
10:18:00 <ShaneM> q+ to ask about PFWG
Shane McCarron: q+ to ask about PFWG ←
10:19:00 <manu> ack shaneM
Manu Sporny: ack shaneM ←
10:19:00 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about PFWG
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to ask about PFWG ←
10:19:00 <ivan> that would mean that html5+rdfa processors would generate different thigns than before
that would mean that html5+rdfa processors would generate different thigns than before ←
10:19:00 <ivan> ShaneM: what are you talking about with the pfwg hat on?
Shane McCarron: what are you talking about with the pfwg hat on? ←
10:21:00 <manu> Open bugs for HTML+RDFa: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10970 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11169
Manu Sporny: Open bugs for HTML+RDFa: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10970 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11169 ←
10:22:00 <ivan> ShaneM: there was an agreement not to follow that up?
Shane McCarron: there was an agreement not to follow that up? ←
10:22:00 <ivan> ... on 4th october he said he would not follow that up
... on 4th october he said he would not follow that up ←
10:22:00 <ivan> manu: ... in the rdfa group. But not in the html wg
Manu Sporny: ... in the rdfa group. But not in the html wg ←
10:23:00 <ivan> ... and he is pushing on accessibility discussion
... and he is pushing on accessibility discussion ←
10:23:00 <ivan> ... he was very involved, and he tried to pull the rdfa wg into this discussion
... he was very involved, and he tried to pull the rdfa wg into this discussion ←
10:23:00 <ivan> ... he thinks we should generate triples for <cite> is that the microdata spec supports it
... he thinks we should generate triples for <cite> is that the microdata spec supports it ←
10:23:00 <ivan> manu: but feature parity with microdata is not a goal for us
Manu Sporny: but feature parity with microdata is not a goal for us ←
10:25:00 <ShaneM> ACTION: Shane get a statement from the PFWG on HTML+RDFa issues 11169 and 10970 (triples for @longdesc and @cite)
ACTION: Shane get a statement from the PFWG on HTML+RDFa issues 11169 and 10970 (triples for @longdesc and @cite) ←
10:25:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - Get a statement from the PFWG on HTML+RDFa issues 11169 and 10970 (triples for @longdesc and @cite) [on Shane McCarron - due 2010-11-11].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-39 - Get a statement from the PFWG on HTML+RDFa issues 11169 and 10970 (triples for @longdesc and @cite) [on Shane McCarron - due 2010-11-11]. ←
10:25:00 <manu> zakim, who is making noise?
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is making noise? ←
10:25:00 <Zakim> manu, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P19 (50%), ??P22 (19%), Ivan (62%)
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P19 (50%), ??P22 (19%), Ivan (62%) ←
10:26:00 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call? ←
10:26:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
10:26:00 <manu> zakim, mute ??P19
Manu Sporny: zakim, mute ??P19 ←
10:26:00 <Zakim> sorry, manu, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??P19
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, manu, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??P19 ←
10:27:00 <manu> Ivan: The point that we have to make clear is that the current RDFa Core 1.1 doesn't have any formal mechanism to extend RDFa Core w/ additional elements/attributes could/should be supported.
Ivan Herman: The point that we have to make clear is that the current RDFa Core 1.1 doesn't have any formal mechanism to extend RDFa Core w/ additional elements/attributes could/should be supported. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
10:27:00 <manu> Ivan: We don't have a formal mechanism where we can extend the attributes processed by RDFa Core - for example @datetime in HTML5.
Ivan Herman: We don't have a formal mechanism where we can extend the attributes processed by RDFa Core - for example @datetime in HTML5. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
10:28:00 <manu> Ivan: We don't have anything to extend the processing steps - we can't just add these items for different languages easily.
Ivan Herman: We don't have anything to extend the processing steps - we can't just add these items for different languages easily. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
10:28:00 <manu> Manu: We can't put it in the HTML+RDFa spec because you can't detect the difference between XHTML1.1 and HTML5 in a way that is not ambiguous 100% of the time. Having different processors do different things also makes implementation much more difficult. I think the key point to make is that RDFa doesn't stop anyone from generating these triples, but we shouldn't mandate this in the spec as it complicates implementations.
Manu Sporny: We can't put it in the HTML+RDFa spec because you can't detect the difference between XHTML1.1 and HTML5 in a way that is not ambiguous 100% of the time. Having different processors do different things also makes implementation much more difficult. I think the key point to make is that RDFa doesn't stop anyone from generating these triples, but we shouldn't mandate this in the spec as it complicates implementations. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
10:29:00 <ShaneM> FYI - what we said w.r.t. our own internal version of issue 10970 was:
Shane McCarron: FYI - what we said w.r.t. our own internal version of ISSUE-10970 was: ←
10:29:00 <ShaneM> I believe that the discussion was aware that this work might be done > in XHTML+RDFa. In the end, I agree with the working group that it > would be inappropriate at this time to try to introduce any > processing rules for @cite and @longdesc in any flavor of RDFa. My > recollection of the meeting is that this opinion was agreed by the > majority of the people present.
Shane McCarron: I believe that the discussion was aware that this work might be done > in XHTML+RDFa. In the end, I agree with the working group that it > would be inappropriate at this time to try to introduce any > processing rules for @cite and @longdesc in any flavor of RDFa. My > recollection of the meeting is that this opinion was agreed by the > majority of the people present. ←
10:29:00 <manu> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670
Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670 ←
10:30:00 <manu> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/120
Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/120 ←
10:36:00 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-52: Lightweight DataStore aligned with ECMAScript
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
10:36:00 <manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/52
Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/52 ←
10:36:00 <ivan> manu: this is our biggest issue
Manu Sporny: this is our biggest issue ←
10:36:00 <ivan> ... but mark is not on the call today:-(
... but mark is not on the call today:-( ←
10:37:00 <ivan> ... there is a lot of stuff in it
... there is a lot of stuff in it ←
10:37:00 <ivan> ... there was some discussion on graph, store, data store, etc
... there was some discussion on graph, store, data store, etc ←
10:37:00 <ivan> ... a lot of the decision on the interface depends on that
... a lot of the decision on the interface depends on that ←
10:37:00 <ivan> ... question is whether we have a graph plus data store or not
... question is whether we have a graph plus data store or not ←
10:38:00 <ivan> nathan: if we do not have a graph in the api
Nathan Rixham: if we do not have a graph in the api ←
10:38:00 <ivan> ... so that is completely in the api at all
... so that is completely in the api at all ←
10:38:00 <ivan> ... we have a data store which is not clear whether it has one, or several set of triples
... we have a data store which is not clear whether it has one, or several set of triples ←
10:38:00 <ivan> ... so it was not fully defined
... so it was not fully defined ←
10:38:00 <ivan> ... when i implemented and i realized this
... when i implemented and i realized this ←
10:39:00 <ivan> ... want to realign it to have a clear set of triples
... want to realign it to have a clear set of triples ←
10:39:00 <ivan> ... the datastore interface is more an array a triples
... the datastore interface is more an array a triples ←
10:39:00 <ivan> ... and we came up that datastore is just a graph
... and we came up that datastore is just a graph ←
10:40:00 <ivan> ... mark said that he had the idea was raised but was pushed back
... mark said that he had the idea was raised but was pushed back ←
10:40:00 <manu> q+ to discuss complexity for developers.
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss complexity for developers. ←
10:40:00 <manu> ack manu
Manu Sporny: ack manu ←
10:40:00 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss complexity for developers.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to discuss complexity for developers. ←
10:41:00 <ivan> manu: the gut reaction i had was this is getting more an more complicated to developers
Manu Sporny: the gut reaction i had was this is getting more an more complicated to developers ←
10:41:00 <ivan> .... whatever we create should be simple for js developers
.... whatever we create should be simple for js developers ←
10:41:00 <ivan> ... but i want to make sure that the most common use case can be written down properly
... but i want to make sure that the most common use case can be written down properly ←
10:41:00 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
10:41:00 <ivan> ... and that is a danger
... and that is a danger ←
10:42:00 <ivan> ... it is not clear what a js developer would use this interface
... it is not clear what a js developer would use this interface ←
10:42:00 <ivan> .. when a make a query, do they path a graph, a datastore, would they realize the difference between the two?
.. when a make a query, do they path a graph, a datastore, would they realize the difference between the two? ←
10:42:00 <manu> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
10:43:00 <manu> Ivan: In RDFlib - there are only graphs.
Ivan Herman: In RDFlib - there are only graphs. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
10:43:00 <manu> Ivan: I do operations on the graph - that is in the Python world - I don't understand the necessity of a DataStore.
Ivan Herman: I do operations on the graph - that is in the Python world - I don't understand the necessity of a DataStore. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
10:43:00 <manu> Ivan: We have graphs or stores, why do we need both?
Ivan Herman: We have graphs or stores, why do we need both? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
10:43:00 <manu> q+ to discuss named graphs.
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss named graphs. ←
10:44:00 <nathan> q+ to addres points
Nathan Rixham: q+ to addres points ←
10:44:00 <manu> ack manu
Manu Sporny: ack manu ←
10:44:00 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss named graphs.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to discuss named graphs. ←
10:44:00 <ivan> manu: one of the reason is that having a concept the named graph
Manu Sporny: one of the reason is that having a concept the named graph ←
10:44:00 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
10:44:00 <manu> ack webr
Manu Sporny: ack webr ←
10:44:00 <Zakim> webr, you wanted to addres points
Zakim IRC Bot: webr, you wanted to addres points ←
10:44:00 <manu> q+ webr to address points
Manu Sporny: q+ webr to address points ←
10:45:00 <manu> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
10:45:00 <manu> Ivan: We have separate graphs, the first is the processing graph, the other one is something else.
Ivan Herman: We have separate graphs, the first is the processing graph, the other one is something else. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
10:45:00 <manu> ack webr
Manu Sporny: ack webr ←
10:45:00 <Zakim> webr, you wanted to address points
Zakim IRC Bot: webr, you wanted to address points ←
10:45:00 <manu> q+ to discuss named graphs a bit more
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss named graphs a bit more ←
10:45:00 <ivan> nathan: for the complexity
Nathan Rixham: for the complexity ←
10:46:00 <ivan> ... this interface proposed is the same as an array in js, we can call it a graph, but it is the same
... this interface proposed is the same as an array in js, we can call it a graph, but it is the same ←
10:46:00 <ivan> ... we need some more methods, but it is a a js array
... we need some more methods, but it is a a js array ←
10:46:00 <ivan> ... it is familiar and normal for js programmer
... it is familiar and normal for js programmer ←
10:46:00 <ivan> ... it is also easy to implement it
... it is also easy to implement it ←
10:46:00 <ivan> ... you have to proxy things to an array
... you have to proxy things to an array ←
10:46:00 <ivan> ... from that aspect it is simpler and familiar
... from that aspect it is simpler and familiar ←
10:47:00 <ivan> ... the difference between the two: a datastore is where we store the graphs
... the difference between the two: a datastore is where we store the graphs ←
10:47:00 <ivan> ... that is pretty much a datastore
... that is pretty much a datastore ←
10:47:00 <ivan> ... and if you have a datastore, we need a way to represent a graph
... and if you have a datastore, we need a way to represent a graph ←
10:47:00 <ivan> ... we need a form of a graph
... we need a form of a graph ←
10:48:00 <ivan> ... finally...when you store a graph you pass a name to it, and you get the named graph
... finally...when you store a graph you pass a name to it, and you get the named graph ←
10:48:00 <ivan> ... that is essentially the role of a datastore
... that is essentially the role of a datastore ←
10:49:00 <ivan> ... and there is no concept of a named graph in the datastore right now
... and there is no concept of a named graph in the datastore right now ←
10:49:00 <manu> ack manu
Manu Sporny: ack manu ←
10:49:00 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss named graphs a bit more
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to discuss named graphs a bit more ←
10:49:00 <ivan> manu: you did clarify the named graph issue
Manu Sporny: you did clarify the named graph issue ←
10:49:00 <ivan> ... the rdfa wg has to decide is how to decide on named graphs
... the rdfa wg has to decide is how to decide on named graphs ←
10:49:00 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
10:49:00 <ivan> ... we might want to work on that
... we might want to work on that ←
10:50:00 <nathan> q+ to make distinction between "RDFa API" and "RDF TripleStore API"
Nathan Rixham: q+ to make distinction between "RDFa API" and "RDF TripleStore API" ←
10:50:00 <ivan> ... we already the concept of a processor graph and we could formalize it in the api
... we already the concept of a processor graph and we could formalize it in the api ←
10:50:00 <manu> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
10:50:00 <manu> Ivan: I disagree
Ivan Herman: I disagree [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
10:51:00 <manu> Ivan: The RDFa Working Group does not have in its charter to do anything w/ Named Graphs - we don't even know what Named Graphs mean. There are ideas flying around in the community, but we don't know what the consensus is.
Ivan Herman: The RDFa Working Group does not have in its charter to do anything w/ Named Graphs - we don't even know what Named Graphs mean. There are ideas flying around in the community, but we don't know what the consensus is. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
10:52:00 <manu> Ivan: There will probably be an RDF WG, they will have to decide what to do w/ Named Graphs, but that is going to take much longer than the charter of this WG.
Ivan Herman: There will probably be an RDF WG, they will have to decide what to do w/ Named Graphs, but that is going to take much longer than the charter of this WG. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
10:52:00 <manu> Ivan: We should not push of LC for RDFa API for named graphs - that was the formal comment.
Ivan Herman: We should not push of LC for RDFa API for named graphs - that was the formal comment. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
10:52:00 <manu> Ivan: In practice, we should provide enough extensibility that would allow the named graph stuff in the future.
Ivan Herman: In practice, we should provide enough extensibility that would allow the named graph stuff in the future. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
10:53:00 <manu> Ivan: We have to deliver layer 1 and possibly layer 2 - RDFa API...
Ivan Herman: We have to deliver layer 1 and possibly layer 2 - RDFa API... [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
10:53:00 <manu> Ivan: but named graphs may be a layer 3 issue
Ivan Herman: but named graphs may be a layer 3 issue [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
10:53:00 <manu> Ivan: Doing Named Graphs is not in our charter -- formal.
Ivan Herman: Doing Named Graphs is not in our charter -- formal. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
10:53:00 <manu> ack webr
Manu Sporny: ack webr ←
10:53:00 <Zakim> webr, you wanted to make distinction between "RDFa API" and "RDF TripleStore API"
Zakim IRC Bot: webr, you wanted to make distinction between "RDFa API" and "RDF TripleStore API" ←
10:53:00 <ivan> nathan: i agree with what ivan said
Nathan Rixham: i agree with what ivan said ←
10:54:00 <ivan> ... with an rdfa document and the dom you do not need a store with multiple graphs
... with an rdfa document and the dom you do not need a store with multiple graphs ←
10:54:00 <ivan> ... what we need is a simple rdf graphs
... what we need is a simple rdf graphs ←
10:54:00 <ivan> ... you can get many of those, merge them, you can deal with them
... you can get many of those, merge them, you can deal with them ←
10:55:00 <ivan> ... what we do not have is to have multiple graphs with names etc, that is a matter of the rdf level and is not rdfa level
... what we do not have is to have multiple graphs with names etc, that is a matter of the rdf level and is not rdfa level ←
10:55:00 <manu> q+ to say that we don't have to name the graphs.
Manu Sporny: q+ to say that we don't have to name the graphs. ←
10:55:00 <manu> ack manu
Manu Sporny: ack manu ←
10:55:00 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to say that we don't have to name the graphs.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to say that we don't have to name the graphs. ←
10:55:00 <ivan> manu: part of me agrees with you
Manu Sporny: part of me agrees with you ←
10:56:00 <ivan> ... we can have a concept of a graph, and we can put it in a datastore
... we can have a concept of a graph, and we can put it in a datastore ←
10:56:00 <ivan> ... but that could mean a merge it, so we loose the provenance information
... but that could mean a merge it, so we loose the provenance information ←
10:56:00 <ivan> ... we try to balance it
... we try to balance it ←
10:56:00 <ivan> ... ivan is right, if we do a named graph then we are creating a precedence
... ivan is right, if we do a named graph then we are creating a precedence ←
10:56:00 <Benjamin> q+ to ask if multiple stores can exist in the scope of a single document
Benjamin Adrian: q+ to ask if multiple stores can exist in the scope of a single document ←
10:57:00 <manu> ack Benjamin
Manu Sporny: ack Benjamin ←
10:57:00 <Zakim> Benjamin, you wanted to ask if multiple stores can exist in the scope of a single document
Zakim IRC Bot: Benjamin, you wanted to ask if multiple stores can exist in the scope of a single document ←
10:57:00 <ivan> ... then we can a problem if, for example, a rdf group says that it has to have a uri as a name, we have problems
... then we can a problem if, for example, a rdf group says that it has to have a uri as a name, we have problems ←
10:57:00 <ivan> Benjamin: can we have multiple stores in a document?
Benjamin Adrian: can we have multiple stores in a document? ←
10:57:00 <ivan> ... is it possible to handle them?
... is it possible to handle them? ←
10:57:00 <ivan> .. i think it is
.. i think it is ←
10:58:00 <ivan> nathan: currently we need a distinction between a graph and a store
Nathan Rixham: currently we need a distinction between a graph and a store ←
10:58:00 <ivan> ... you can have multiple contexts, documents...
... you can have multiple contexts, documents... ←
10:58:00 <ivan> ... if we define in a some way that we can have multiple datastores
... if we define in a some way that we can have multiple datastores ←
10:58:00 <manu> q+ to ask Nathan to create DataStore and RDFGraph IDL
Manu Sporny: q+ to ask Nathan to create DataStore and RDFGraph IDL ←
10:58:00 <ivan> ... but generally it is possible
... but generally it is possible ←
10:59:00 <ivan> ... we have to think about different environments, because people want it
... we have to think about different environments, because people want it ←
10:59:00 <ivan> ... we cannot do that with only one store and one databse
... we cannot do that with only one store and one databse ←
10:59:00 <ivan> ... one other thing
... one other thing ←
10:59:00 <ivan> ... there is a sparql consideration there, which raised the FROM thing
... there is a sparql consideration there, which raised the FROM thing ←
10:59:00 <ivan> ... we have to specify what the FROM is
... we have to specify what the FROM is ←
10:59:00 <manu> ack manu
Manu Sporny: ack manu ←
10:59:00 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask Nathan to create DataStore and RDFGraph IDL
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to ask Nathan to create DataStore and RDFGraph IDL ←
11:00:00 <ivan> manu: it is difficult for me to imagine what exactly you have in mind
Manu Sporny: it is difficult for me to imagine what exactly you have in mind ←
11:01:00 <ivan> nathan: we definitely need a graph, and many people will need a store
Nathan Rixham: we definitely need a graph, and many people will need a store ←
11:01:00 <ivan> ... but a store is so common that we can as well standardize it
... but a store is so common that we can as well standardize it ←
11:01:00 <ivan> ... there conceptually two distinct things
... there conceptually two distinct things ←
11:01:00 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
11:01:00 <manu> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
11:02:00 <ivan> manu: can you write the interfaces down so that we can discuss them next week
Manu Sporny: can you write the interfaces down so that we can discuss them next week ←
11:02:00 <manu> q+ to end the telecon
Manu Sporny: q+ to end the telecon ←
11:04:00 <nathan> q+ to clarify minor detail
Nathan Rixham: q+ to clarify minor detail ←
11:04:00 <manu> ack manu
Manu Sporny: ack manu ←
11:04:00 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to end the telecon
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to end the telecon ←
11:04:00 <ivan> --- adjurned
--- adjurned ←
11:04:00 <manu> ack webr
Manu Sporny: ack webr ←
11:04:00 <Zakim> webr, you wanted to clarify minor detail
Zakim IRC Bot: webr, you wanted to clarify minor detail ←
11:13:00 <manu> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#accessing-the-processor-graph
(No events recorded for 9 minutes)
Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#accessing-the-processor-graph ←
11:16:00 <ShaneM> The point I raised was that the RDFa API needs to at the very least allow access to the processor graph and the default graph (and the combined graph?)
Shane McCarron: The point I raised was that the RDFa API needs to at the very least allow access to the processor graph and the default graph (and the combined graph?) ←
11:22:00 <ivan> zakim, drop me
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
zakim, drop me ←
11:22:00 <Zakim> sorry, ivan, I do not see a party named 'ivan'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, ivan, I do not see a party named 'ivan' ←
11:22:00 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended ←
11:22:00 <Zakim> Attendees were
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were ←
Formatted by CommonScribe