13:53:51 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/16-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/16-rdfa-irc ←
13:53:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:53:55 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
13:53:55 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes ←
13:53:56 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
13:53:56 <trackbot> Date: 16 September 2010
13:53:59 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Sep/0081.html
13:54:02 <manu1> Chair: Manu
13:54:14 <manu1> Present: Steven, Manu, Toby, MarkB, Knud, Shane
13:56:42 <manu1> Regrets: Ivan, Benjamin
13:56:42 <manu1> scribenick: Knud
(Scribe set to Knud Möller)
13:58:11 <markbirbeck> zakim, codes?
Mark Birbeck: zakim, codes? ←
13:58:11 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, markbirbeck.
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand your question, markbirbeck. ←
13:58:17 <markbirbeck> zakim, code?
Mark Birbeck: zakim, code? ←
13:58:18 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), markbirbeck
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), markbirbeck ←
14:00:24 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started ←
14:00:32 <Zakim> +??P27
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P27 ←
14:00:40 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P27
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P27 ←
14:00:40 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
14:01:58 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
Steven Pemberton: zakim, dial steven-617 ←
14:01:58 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Steven; the call is being made ←
14:01:59 <Zakim> +Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven ←
14:03:30 <Zakim> +Knud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Knud ←
14:03:32 <Knud> zakim, mute me
zakim, mute me ←
14:03:45 <Zakim> Knud should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Knud should now be muted ←
14:04:19 <Zakim> +ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM ←
14:08:23 <Zakim> +??P2
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2 ←
14:08:31 <markbirbeck> zakim, i am ?
Mark Birbeck: zakim, i am ? ←
14:08:31 <Zakim> +markbirbeck; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +markbirbeck; got it ←
14:09:11 <Knud> TOPIC: RDFa API Heartbeat publication
14:09:28 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/WD-rdfa-api-20100912/
Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/WD-rdfa-api-20100912/ ←
14:10:00 <Knud> manu: this version includes all of Ivan's comments, incl. two class diagrams
Manu Sporny: this version includes all of Ivan's comments, incl. two class diagrams ←
14:10:15 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/WD-rdfa-api-20100912/#the-rdf-interfaces
Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/WD-rdfa-api-20100912/#the-rdf-interfaces ←
14:10:31 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/WD-rdfa-api-20100912/#the-linked-data-interfaces
Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/WD-rdfa-api-20100912/#the-linked-data-interfaces ←
14:11:07 <Knud> ... still not 100% perfect, need to be adapted
... still not 100% perfect, need to be adapted ←
14:11:12 <markbirbeck> q+
Mark Birbeck: q+ ←
14:11:58 <manu1> ack mark
Manu Sporny: ack mark ←
14:12:06 <Knud> ... diff still needs to be created
... diff still needs to be created ←
14:12:17 <Knud> mark: document looks pretty good!
Mark Birbeck: document looks pretty good! ←
14:12:56 <Knud> manu: for certain things, there are still issue markers in the document
Manu Sporny: for certain things, there are still issue markers in the document ←
14:14:04 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Publish the latest RDFa API draft as a heartbeat draft, adding diff-marked version: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/WD-rdfa-api-20100912/
PROPOSED: Publish the latest RDFa API draft as a heartbeat draft, adding diff-marked version: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/WD-rdfa-api-20100912/ ←
14:14:14 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:14:14 <markbirbeck> +1
Mark Birbeck: +1 ←
14:14:17 <Knud> Knud: +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
14:14:19 <tinkster> +1
Toby Inkster: +1 ←
14:14:32 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:14:35 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:14:38 <Knud> (Ivan and Benjamin gave their approval for publication in W3C-archived team e-mail and public RDFa WG mailing list, respectively)
(Ivan and Benjamin gave their approval for publication in W3C-archived team e-mail and public RDFa WG mailing list, respectively) ←
14:14:50 <manu1> RESOLVED: Publish the latest RDFa draft as a heartbeat draft, adding diff-marked version: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/WD-rdfa-api-20100912/
RESOLVED: Publish the latest RDFa draft as a heartbeat draft, adding diff-marked version: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/WD-rdfa-api-20100912/ ←
14:15:12 <Knud> TOPIC: Signal RDF/SemWeb/Linked Data of RDFa Heartbeat publication
14:16:18 <Knud> manu: we need to involve the RDF community into the RDFa API, because they feel we are in fact creating an RDF API
Manu Sporny: we need to involve the RDF community into the RDFa API, because they feel we are in fact creating an RDF API ←
14:17:07 <Knud> ... groups to contact: SWIG, RDF-Core, browser vendors, ...
... groups to contact: SWIG, RDF-Core, browser vendors, ... ←
14:17:44 <markbirbeck> q+
Mark Birbeck: q+ ←
14:17:48 <Knud> ... LOD community
... LOD community ←
14:18:33 <tinkster> webapps wg!
Toby Inkster: webapps wg! ←
14:19:46 <Knud> steven: possible problem: our charter doesn't ask us to do anything more general than an RDFa API
Steven Pemberton: possible problem: our charter doesn't ask us to do anything more general than an RDFa API ←
14:20:25 <manu1> ack mark
Manu Sporny: ack mark ←
14:21:30 <Knud> mark: see last call, Ivan: changing the name should be discussed internally
Mark Birbeck: see last call, Ivan: changing the name should be discussed internally ←
14:22:19 <Knud> ... publish heartbeat first, then carefully find out what the community thinks: is the general nature of our API a problem?
... publish heartbeat first, then carefully find out what the community thinks: is the general nature of our API a problem? ←
14:22:54 <Knud> ... if we get pushback, we might think about what we could remove from the API
... if we get pushback, we might think about what we could remove from the API ←
14:23:24 <Knud> ... we have a good architecture in place, now we can possible factor out some things
... we have a good architecture in place, now we can possible factor out some things ←
14:23:30 <manu1> q+ to discuss extending the charter re: RDFa API
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss extending the charter re: RDFa API ←
14:23:40 <Knud> ... we should leave as is for now
... we should leave as is for now ←
14:23:41 <manu1> ack
Manu Sporny: ack ←
14:24:05 <Knud> manu: extending the charter is possible, but probably the last thing we want to do
Manu Sporny: extending the charter is possible, but probably the last thing we want to do ←
14:24:22 <markbirbeck> q+
Mark Birbeck: q+ ←
14:24:37 <manu1> ack
Manu Sporny: ack ←
14:24:39 <manu1> ack
Manu Sporny: ack ←
14:24:42 <Knud> ... we have a good story about integrating things like microdata, etc.
... we have a good story about integrating things like microdata, etc. ←
14:24:44 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
14:24:44 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss extending the charter re: RDFa API
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to discuss extending the charter re: RDFa API ←
14:24:48 <manu1> ack markbirbeck
Manu Sporny: ack markbirbeck ←
14:24:52 <Knud> ... so maybe we _do_ want to change the charter?
... so maybe we _do_ want to change the charter? ←
14:25:04 <Knud> mark: maybe we should let the community ask us to do this?
Mark Birbeck: maybe we should let the community ask us to do this? ←
14:25:50 <Knud> ... then we would have a discussion, and a good argument for changing the charter
... then we would have a discussion, and a good argument for changing the charter ←
14:27:49 <Knud> manu: judging from respnse to sandro h's questionnaire, there is a lot of interest in where RDF goes next
Manu Sporny: judging from respnse to sandro h's questionnaire, there is a lot of interest in where RDF goes next ←
14:28:11 <Knud> ... but there wasn't a question on an RDF API, so we don't know how much desire there is for one yet?
... but there wasn't a question on an RDF API, so we don't know how much desire there is for one yet? ←
14:28:56 <Knud> ... anyway, we should start getting a lot of feedback for the RDFa API
... anyway, we should start getting a lot of feedback for the RDFa API ←
14:29:27 <Knud> TOPIC: Processing remote documents via RDFa API
14:29:37 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/44
Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/44 ←
14:30:13 <Knud> manu: concern is: how do we make sure the API can process triples from external/remote documents
Manu Sporny: concern is: how do we make sure the API can process triples from external/remote documents ←
14:30:37 <Knud> ... security issues
... security issues ←
14:31:52 <Knud> ... CORS might solve this in the future
... CORS might solve this in the future ←
14:32:07 <Knud> (http://www.w3.org/TR/cors/)
(http://www.w3.org/TR/cors/) ←
14:32:46 <Knud> ... this discussion is important e.g. for getting RDFa profile document
... this discussion is important e.g. for getting RDFa profile document ←
14:35:32 <markbirbeck> q+
Mark Birbeck: q+ ←
14:35:38 <manu1> ack mark
Manu Sporny: ack mark ←
14:35:57 <Knud> ... we could be bold and suggest a special kind of communication policy for fetching RDFa documents
... we could be bold and suggest a special kind of communication policy for fetching RDFa documents ←
14:36:33 <Knud> mark: maybe suport some other formats
Mark Birbeck: maybe suport some other formats ←
14:36:55 <Knud> ... don't think security is our concern (at the spec level)
... don't think security is our concern (at the spec level) ←
14:37:10 <Knud> ... don't talk about http requests, cookies, CORS, etc. at the spec level
... don't talk about http requests, cookies, CORS, etc. at the spec level ←
14:37:14 <manu1> q+ to discuss CORS vs. no cookies.
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss CORS vs. no cookies. ←
14:38:51 <Knud> ... we could move away from expressing profiles in RDFa and then use a policy such as for iframes, css, etc.
... we could move away from expressing profiles in RDFa and then use a policy such as for iframes, css, etc. ←
14:39:28 <ShaneM> I agree with Mark - rely upon other specs.
Shane McCarron: I agree with Mark - rely upon other specs. ←
14:39:38 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
14:39:38 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss CORS vs. no cookies.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to discuss CORS vs. no cookies. ←
14:39:56 <ShaneM> but I wouldn't object to an implementors guide
Shane McCarron: but I wouldn't object to an implementors guide ←
14:40:11 <Knud> manu: I don't think there is any particular other spec we can rely on for the cookie problem
Manu Sporny: I don't think there is any particular other spec we can rely on for the cookie problem ←
14:40:48 <Knud> ... what makes RDFa unique is that currently, there isn't a whole lot of RDFa out there
... what makes RDFa unique is that currently, there isn't a whole lot of RDFa out there ←
14:41:28 <Knud> ... this gives us the opportunity to start from a blank slate. We can establish policies, best practices.
... this gives us the opportunity to start from a blank slate. We can establish policies, best practices. ←
14:41:45 <markbirbeck> q+
Mark Birbeck: q+ ←
14:42:00 <ShaneM> q+ to ask why this is more serious for us?
Shane McCarron: q+ to ask why this is more serious for us? ←
14:42:35 <manu1> ack mark
Manu Sporny: ack mark ←
14:44:14 <manu1> q+ to discuss creating a wall for the developer
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss creating a wall for the developer ←
14:44:32 <manu1> ack shanem
Manu Sporny: ack shanem ←
14:44:32 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask why this is more serious for us?
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to ask why this is more serious for us? ←
14:45:34 <Knud> shanem: it might be good to provide implementation guidance as non-normative text ...
Shane McCarron: it might be good to provide implementation guidance as non-normative text ... ←
14:45:54 <Knud> ... but be probably can really defer this to other specs
... but be probably can really defer this to other specs ←
14:45:56 <manu1> ack manu
Manu Sporny: ack manu ←
14:45:56 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss creating a wall for the developer
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to discuss creating a wall for the developer ←
14:46:17 <Knud> ... yes, we have an opportunity here, but I don't want one. I don't see why.
... yes, we have an opportunity here, but I don't want one. I don't see why. ←
14:46:21 <markbirbeck> agree with ShaneM
Mark Birbeck: agree with ShaneM ←
14:47:44 <Knud> manu: if the developer were to fetch a remote documents, they would not have access to that complete document, but only to the extracted triples
Manu Sporny: if the developer were to fetch a remote documents, they would not have access to that complete document, but only to the extracted triples ←
14:49:45 <manu1> q+ to say that we can "violate" the security model.
Manu Sporny: q+ to say that we can "violate" the security model. ←
14:50:06 <Knud> mark: but we have to rely on xml-http request anyway - we can't add any other ways of accessing documents
Mark Birbeck: but we have to rely on xml-http request anyway - we can't add any other ways of accessing documents ←
14:50:21 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
14:50:21 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to say that we can "violate" the security model.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to say that we can "violate" the security model. ←
14:50:24 <Knud> ... we have to build on the existing stack, which has its own rules, which we inherit
... we have to build on the existing stack, which has its own rules, which we inherit ←
14:51:30 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about data in RDFa
Shane McCarron: q+ to talk about data in RDFa ←
14:51:36 <markbirbeck> q+
Mark Birbeck: q+ ←
14:51:42 <manu1> ack shane
Manu Sporny: ack shane ←
14:51:42 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about data in RDFa
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to talk about data in RDFa ←
14:51:47 <Knud> manu: again: we might be in the position to actually establish a _new_ security model for RDFa, which could be different than for HTML pages
Manu Sporny: again: we might be in the position to actually establish a _new_ security model for RDFa, which could be different than for HTML pages ←
14:51:53 <tinkster> For in-browser JS implementations, we have to build on XHR, so must inherit its limitations. For native browser implementations, and non-browser implementations, we needn't inherit those limitations.
Toby Inkster: For in-browser JS implementations, we have to build on XHR, so must inherit its limitations. For native browser implementations, and non-browser implementations, we needn't inherit those limitations. ←
14:52:50 <manu1> ack mark
Manu Sporny: ack mark ←
14:52:56 <Knud> mark: this sounds a bit naive. Just because the data is in RDFa, it doesn't mean it's not sensitive!
Shane McCarron: this sounds a bit naive. Just because the data is in RDFa, it doesn't mean it's not sensitive! ←
14:53:06 <Knud> s/mark/shanem
14:53:18 <ShaneM> I agree with tinkster - but I think that means we need to appreciate the limitations of the minimum.
Shane McCarron: I agree with tinkster - but I think that means we need to appreciate the limitations of the minimum. ←
14:53:50 <manu1> q+ to disagree that it's not desirable.
Manu Sporny: q+ to disagree that it's not desirable. ←
14:54:51 <Knud> mark: we don't need to discuss CORS, cookies, etc. We just need to rely on the security stack in the browser.
Mark Birbeck: we don't need to discuss CORS, cookies, etc. We just need to rely on the security stack in the browser. ←
14:54:56 <ShaneM> I agree with mark on this. native browser implementations should adhere to the stack just like a JS implementation would.
Shane McCarron: I agree with mark on this. native browser implementations should adhere to the stack just like a JS implementation would. ←
14:54:57 <manu1> ack manu
Manu Sporny: ack manu ←
14:54:57 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to disagree that it's not desirable.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to disagree that it's not desirable. ←
14:56:04 <markbirbeck> q+
Mark Birbeck: q+ ←
14:56:37 <markbirbeck> Definitely agree with that.
Mark Birbeck: Definitely agree with that. ←
14:56:58 <manu1> ack mark
Manu Sporny: ack mark ←
14:57:11 <Knud> manu: maybe get some browser implementers input to see what they think
Manu Sporny: maybe get some browser implementers input to see what they think ←
14:57:51 <manu1> q+ to discuss research at our company on bypassing CORS.
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss research at our company on bypassing CORS. ←
14:58:34 <Knud> mark: yes, getting things from other places (remote documents) is desirable. Something has to be done about it. But probably not in our spec.
Mark Birbeck: yes, getting things from other places (remote documents) is desirable. Something has to be done about it. But probably not in our spec. ←
14:59:21 <Knud> shanem: "What, does the Semantic Web require a Web?!"
Shane McCarron: "What, does the Semantic Web require a Web?!" ←
15:02:29 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
15:02:29 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss research at our company on bypassing CORS.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to discuss research at our company on bypassing CORS. ←
15:02:36 <manu1> q+ to end the telecon
Manu Sporny: q+ to end the telecon ←
15:04:00 <manu1> PROPOSAL: RDFa API heartbeat draft to be published next Thursday (2010-09-23).
PROPOSED: RDFa API heartbeat draft to be published next Thursday (2010-09-23). ←
15:04:08 <Knud> Knud: +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
15:04:09 <markbirbeck> +1
Mark Birbeck: +1 ←
15:04:11 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:04:13 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
15:04:40 <manu1> RESOLVED: RDFa API heartbeat draft to be published next Thursday (2010-09-23).
RESOLVED: RDFa API heartbeat draft to be published next Thursday (2010-09-23). ←
Formatted by CommonScribe