None.
14:57:12 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/02-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/02-rdfa-irc ←
14:57:14 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:57:16 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
14:57:16 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: 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
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started ←
14:59:17 <Zakim> +??P11
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P11 ←
14:59:21 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P11
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P11 ←
14:59:24 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
14:59:41 <Zakim> +??P16
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16 ←
14:59:44 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P16
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P16 ←
14:59:44 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
15:01:38 <Zakim> +??P19
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P19 ←
15:01:47 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P19
Niklas Lindström: zakim, I am ??P19 ←
15:01:48 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +niklasl; got it ←
15:02:34 <Zakim> + +1.612.217.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.612.217.aaaa ←
15:02:40 <ShaneM> zakim, aaaa is ShaneM
Shane McCarron: zakim, aaaa is ShaneM ←
15:02:44 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM; got it ←
15:02:48 <ShaneM> zakim, mute me
Shane McCarron: zakim, mute me ←
15:02:52 <Zakim> ShaneM should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM should now be muted ←
15:04:38 <Zakim> +Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven ←
15:05:16 <Zakim> +scor
Zakim IRC Bot: +scor ←
15:06:26 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Feb/0000.html
15:06:33 <niklasl> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
15:06:36 <gkellogg> q+ to ask about updates to CURIE
Gregg Kellogg: q+ to ask about updates to CURIE ←
15:16:01 <scor> scribe: scor
(No events recorded for 9 minutes)
(Scribe set to Stéphane Corlosquet)
15:06:37 <Steven> Manu: Any changes to the Agenda?
Manu Sporny: Any changes to the Agenda? [ Scribe Assist by Steven Pemberton ] ←
15:07:10 <scor> niklasl: should we talk about the issue about @id
Niklas Lindström: should we talk about the issue about @id ←
15:07:10 <scor> Topic: ISSUE-121: Using @id to set subject in RDFa
15:07:16 <scor> manu1: yes, we have to respond to Sebastian's email
Manu Sporny: yes, we have to respond to Sebastian's email ←
15:07:45 <Zakim> -ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: -ShaneM ←
15:07:50 <scor> manu1: We were clear on the call, there was no support. He misread the straw poll as some people were interested in supporting it when nobody in the WG thinks that it would be a good idea to support @id.
Manu Sporny: We were clear on the call, there was no support. He misread the straw poll as some people were interested in supporting it when nobody in the WG thinks that it would be a good idea to support @id. ←
15:09:23 <Zakim> +ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM ←
15:09:29 <ShaneM> zakim, mute me
Shane McCarron: zakim, mute me ←
15:09:29 <Zakim> ShaneM should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM should now be muted ←
15:09:45 <Zakim> + +1.781.273.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.781.273.aabb ←
15:10:04 <MacTed> Zakim, aabb is OpenLink_Software
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, aabb is OpenLink_Software ←
15:10:04 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software; got it ←
15:10:07 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:10:07 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
15:10:09 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:10:09 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
15:10:35 <scor_> manu1: His suggestion on @id and @typeof is in HTTP range-14 territory, it is a backwards-incompatible change... it is very complicated matter.
Manu Sporny: His suggestion on @id and @typeof is in HTTP range-14 territory, it is a backwards-incompatible change... it is very complicated matter. ←
15:10:46 <scor_> niklasl: There is also the magnetism of @typeof now, where you have to check for @rel - I didn't intend to seem like I supported the change.
Niklas Lindström: There is also the magnetism of @typeof now, where you have to check for @rel - I didn't intend to seem like I supported the change. ←
15:10:55 <niklasl> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
15:11:10 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:11:14 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
15:11:14 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to ask about updates to CURIE
Zakim IRC Bot: gkellogg, you wanted to ask about updates to CURIE ←
15:11:19 <ShaneM> zakim, unmute me
Shane McCarron: zakim, unmute me ←
15:11:19 <Zakim> ShaneM should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM should no longer be muted ←
15:11:44 <scor_> Topic: CURIE update in RDFa Core
15:11:44 <scor_> gkellogg: Shouldn't we make the changes to CURIE in RDFa Core - the // and : changes?
Gregg Kellogg: Shouldn't we make the changes to CURIE in RDFa Core - the // and : changes? ←
15:11:56 <scor_> ShaneM: We approved it during the last call, it's in the spec.
Shane McCarron: We approved it during the last call, it's in the spec. ←
15:13:00 <scor_> niklasl: ShaneM do you want me to write a note about http:// conflict?
Niklas Lindström: ShaneM do you want me to write a note about http:// conflict? ←
15:13:24 <scor_> ShaneM: Is there a formal XML Schema definition for the new production for CURIE?
Shane McCarron: Is there a formal XML Schema definition for the new production for CURIE? ←
15:14:11 <scor_> niklasl: instead of a note, maybe we want to add a section?
Niklas Lindström: instead of a note, maybe we want to add a section? ←
15:14:21 <scor_> manu1: please suggest a text on the mailing list, Niklas.
Manu Sporny: please suggest a text on the mailing list, Niklas. ←
15:15:35 <scor_> niklasl: there is already a regex in the IRI rfc
Niklas Lindström: 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
Niklas Lindström: I'll try to see what we can reuse from there ←
15:16:01 <scor_> scribe: scor_
15:16:35 <ShaneM> zakim, mute me
Shane McCarron: zakim, mute me ←
15:16:35 <Zakim> ShaneM should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM should now be muted ←
15:16:36 <manu1> Topic: RDFa 1.1 Last Call
15:16:44 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/01/31/new-rdfa-drafts-published/
Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/01/31/new-rdfa-drafts-published/ ←
15:16:57 <Steven> http://rdfa.info/2012/02/02/three-last-call-working-drafts-published-by-the-rdfa-working-group/
Steven Pemberton: http://rdfa.info/2012/02/02/three-last-call-working-drafts-published-by-the-rdfa-working-group/ ←
15:17:01 <scor_> manu1: We're in last call. Great job everybody! Everything going smoothly so far...
Manu Sporny: We're in last call. Great job everybody! Everything going smoothly so far... ←
15:18:01 <scor_> manu1: If 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 spec, that would be great.
Manu Sporny: If 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 spec, that would be great. ←
15:18:01 <manu1> Topic: Plan for Candidate Recommendation phase
15:18:23 <scor_> manu1: we ask for two interoperable implementations
Manu Sporny: we ask for two interoperable implementations ←
15:18:40 <Zakim> -gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←
15:18:49 <scor_> ... with Ivan and Gregg's parser we meet the minimum requirement for CR
... with Ivan and Gregg's parser we meet the minimum requirement for CR ←
15:18:58 <scor_> ... we have about 6 weeks to get any other ones done
... we have about 6 weeks to get any other ones done ←
15:19:17 <scor_> ... once we do that, we have to produce a report showing that these parsers pass the test suite
... 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 used EARL for the test results.
... in RDFa 1.0 we used EARL for the test results. ←
15:19:42 <scor_> ... I need to regenerate these reports for RDFa 1.1
... I need to regenerate these reports for RDFa 1.1 ←
15:19:55 <scor_> ... anyone has a better suggestion for creating these reports?
... anyone has a better suggestion for creating these reports? ←
15:19:55 <Zakim> +??P60
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P60 ←
15:20:02 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P60
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P60 ←
15:20:02 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
15:20:20 <scor_> ... ok, we'll keep it the same for RDFa 1.1
... ok, we'll keep it the same for RDFa 1.1 ←
15:21:07 <gkellogg> XMLLiteral tests are always problematic, maybe we could work on those?
Gregg Kellogg: XMLLiteral tests are always problematic, maybe we could work on those? ←
15:21:10 <scor_> ... your parser does not have to pass all of the tests. All we need is for at least two parsers to pass each test to demonstrate interoperability.
... your parser does not have to pass all of the tests. All we need is for at least two parsers to pass each test to demonstrate interoperability. ←
15:21:49 <niklasl> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
15:21:54 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:22:30 <scor_> niklasl: Have you tried using regex for improving the test suite?
Niklas Lindström: 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
Manu Sporny: the test suite is on github, and you can run it locally ←
15:23:13 <scor_> manu1: XMLLiteral test can use some improvements, we just didn't have the time last time around. Maybe we can do something about it this time around?
Manu Sporny: XMLLiteral test can use some improvements, we just didn't have the time last time around. Maybe we can do something about it this time around? ←
15:23:29 <manu1> Topic: Test Suite Updates
15:23:59 <scor_> manu1: We have test suites for RDFa 1.0 in XHTML and SVGTiny. We have test suits for RDFa 1.1 in XML, XHTML, HTML4, SVGTiny, SVG, HTML5 and XHTML5.
Manu Sporny: We have test suites for RDFa 1.0 in XHTML and SVGTiny. We have test suits for RDFa 1.1 in XML, XHTML, HTML4, SVGTiny, SVG, HTML5 and XHTML5. ←
15:24:10 <niklasl> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
15:24:11 <manu1> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
Manu Sporny: http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/ ←
15:24:19 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:24:32 <scor_> niklasl: do we test the difference in default context at the moment?
Niklas Lindström: do we test the difference in default context at the moment? ←
15:24:36 <scor_> manu1: In XHTML, yes, in all the other languages, no, I don't think so.
Manu Sporny: In XHTML, yes, in all the other languages, no, I don't think so. ←
15:25:29 <scor_> gkellogg: we might have some. need to check
Gregg Kellogg: we might have some. need to check ←
15:26:13 <ShaneM> zakim, unmute me
Shane McCarron: zakim, unmute me ←
15:26:13 <Zakim> ShaneM should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM should no longer be muted ←
15:26:17 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about XHTML
Shane McCarron: 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)
Manu Sporny: 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
Gregg Kellogg: q+ to ask about RDFa 1.1 Lite tests ←
15:28:16 <scor_> +q to ask about HTML5 parsers from browsers
+q to ask about HTML5 parsers from browsers ←
15:28:21 <ShaneM> q-
Shane McCarron: q- ←
15:28:28 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
15:28:28 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to ask about RDFa 1.1 Lite tests
Zakim IRC Bot: gkellogg, you wanted to ask about RDFa 1.1 Lite tests ←
15:28:42 <ShaneM> We cannot require XHTML5+RDFa conformance for CR.
Shane McCarron: 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
Gregg Kellogg: 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+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
15:28:58 <ShaneM> XHTML+RDFa 1.1 is its own language. It is a superset of XHTML 1.1
Shane McCarron: 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
Shane McCarron: we dont do document tests - we do processor tests ←
15:29:35 <scor_> manu1: RDFa Lite is about document conformance, not processing conformance (which is what the test suite is about)
Manu Sporny: RDFa Lite is about document conformance, not processing conformance (which is what the test suite is about) ←
15:29:45 <manu1> ack scor_
Manu Sporny: ack scor_ ←
15:29:48 <Zakim> scor_, you wanted to ask about HTML5 parsers from browsers
Zakim IRC Bot: scor_, you wanted to ask about HTML5 parsers from browsers ←
15:29:49 <scor_> gkellogg: we don't test what the processor graph outputs
Gregg Kellogg: we don't test what the processor graph outputs ←
15:31:04 <gkellogg> q+ to mention optional features: vocab entailment
Gregg Kellogg: q+ to mention optional features: vocab entailment ←
15:31:08 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:31:31 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about xhtml testing and html5 testing
Shane McCarron: 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
Niklas Lindström: re. RDFa Lite in test suite: I'd be careful because processors should handle RDFa full ←
15:31:50 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
15:31:50 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to mention optional features: vocab entailment
Zakim IRC Bot: gkellogg, you wanted to mention optional features: vocab entailment ←
15:31:59 <manu1> q+ to discuss RDFa 1.1 Lite tests.
Manu Sporny: 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
Niklas Lindström: but we could add which of the test documents are RDFa Lite conformant ←
15:32:11 <scor_> gkellogg: agreed
Gregg Kellogg: agreed ←
15:32:40 <scor_> gkellogg: we don't have optional feature support like vocab entailment not happening unless some processor parameter is used
Gregg Kellogg: we don't have optional feature support like vocab entailment not happening unless some processor parameter is used ←
15:32:53 <manu1> ack shaneM
Manu Sporny: ack shaneM ←
15:32:53 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about xhtml testing and html5 testing
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to talk about xhtml testing and html5 testing ←
15:33:51 <scor_> ShaneM: we don't care about element reordering wrt to RDFa processing, that's up to the HTML processor which hits the document before the RDFa processor does.
Shane McCarron: we don't care about element reordering wrt to RDFa processing, that's up to the HTML processor which hits the document before the RDFa processor does. ←
15:34:25 <scor_> manu1: you're technically correct, but not sure this is an acceptable answer in the HTML WG
Manu Sporny: you're technically correct, but not sure this is an acceptable answer in the HTML WG ←
15:35:15 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
15:35:15 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss RDFa 1.1 Lite tests.
Zakim IRC Bot: 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
Manu Sporny: 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.
Shane McCarron: 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
Shane McCarron: 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
... 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
Gregg Kellogg: it would be useful to identify which documents are conformant to RDFa Lite ←
15:37:11 <Steven> I agree with Manu, we shouldn't have an RDFa Lite only portion of the test suite.
Steven Pemberton: I agree with Manu, we shouldn't have an RDFa Lite only portion of the test suite. ←
15:37:16 <scor_> gkellogg: ok
Gregg Kellogg: 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)
Manu Sporny: 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)
... 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?
... 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
Gregg Kellogg: 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
Manu Sporny: 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?
Gregg Kellogg: not sure we have something like that for vocab entailment? ←
15:41:13 <scor_> ... section 10.1 talks about how to do entailment
... section 10.1 talks about how to do entailment ←
15:41:16 <ShaneM> See sections 7.6.1 and 7.6.2
Shane McCarron: See sections 7.6.1 and 7.6.2 ←
15:41:22 <scor_> gkellogg: but no web service param is defined there
Gregg Kellogg: 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 the extra triples when checking the output graph
Manu Sporny: your processor could do vocab entailment and the test suite would ignore the extra triples when checking the output graph ←
15:43:06 <scor_> gkellogg: but no url param is defined there
Gregg Kellogg: but no url param is defined there ←
15:44:54 <ShaneM> it IS in the spec
Shane McCarron: 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."
Shane McCarron: "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." ←
15:45:53 <ShaneM> we should add clarifying text that this is a URL parameter
Shane McCarron: we should add clarifying text that this is a URL parameter ←
15:46:05 <ShaneM> that would NOT be a substantive change.
Shane McCarron: that would NOT be a substantive change. ←
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
Manu Sporny: 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
Manu Sporny: this is mostly paperwork ←
15:49:30 <scor_> manu1: anyone other than Gregg, Ivan and myself willing to contribute to the test suite?
Manu Sporny: anyone other than Gregg, Ivan and myself willing to contribute to the test suite? ←
15:49:33 <niklasl> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
15:50:05 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
15:50:08 <scor_> manu1: everything is on github https://github.com/msporny/rdfa-test-suite
Manu Sporny: everything is on github https://github.com/msporny/rdfa-test-suite ←
15:50:24 <scor_> niklasl: happy to contribute to the test suite
Niklas Lindström: happy to contribute to the test suite ←
15:50:54 <scor_> manu1: I propose that we cancel the WG calls during the LC phase so we can focus on the test suite and implementations
Manu Sporny: I propose that we cancel the WG calls during the LC phase so we can focus on the test suite and implementations ←
15:51:14 <scor_> ... any objections?
... any objections? ←
15:51:14 <scor_> No objections noted.
No objections noted. ←
15:51:29 <scor_> ... we can do most of the work via the mailing list
... we can do most of the work via the mailing list ←
Formatted by CommonScribe