13:26:22 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/04/05-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/04/05-rdfa-irc ←
13:26:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:26:26 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
13:26:26 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 34 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 34 minutes ←
13:26:27 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:26:27 <trackbot> Date: 05 April 2012
14:00:56 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 34 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started ←
14:01:03 <Zakim> +??P30
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P30 ←
14:01:07 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P30
Niklas Lindström: zakim, I am ??P30 ←
14:01:07 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +niklasl; got it ←
14:01:31 <Zakim> +??P31
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P31 ←
14:01:36 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P31
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P31 ←
14:01:39 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P31
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P31 ←
14:01:47 <Zakim> + +1.540.961.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.540.961.aaaa ←
14:01:53 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
14:01:54 <manu1> zakim, I am ??aaaa
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??aaaa ←
14:01:57 <Zakim> sorry, manu1, I do not see a party named '??P31'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, manu1, I do not see a party named '??P31' ←
14:01:58 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P31
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P31 ←
14:02:00 <manu1> zakim, I am aaaa
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am aaaa ←
14:02:15 <Zakim> sorry, manu1, I do not see a party named '??aaaa'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, manu1, I do not see a party named '??aaaa' ←
14:02:19 <Zakim> sorry, gkellogg, I do not see a party named '??P31'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, gkellogg, I do not see a party named '??P31' ←
14:02:21 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
14:02:44 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ?P31
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ?P31 ←
14:03:04 <Zakim> sorry, gkellogg, I do not see a party named '?P31'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, gkellogg, I do not see a party named '?P31' ←
14:03:09 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P31
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P31 ←
14:03:27 <Zakim> sorry, gkellogg, I do not see a party named '??P31'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, gkellogg, I do not see a party named '??P31' ←
14:03:43 <gkellogg> zakim, who is on the call?
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:03:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see niklasl, gkellogg, manu1
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see niklasl, gkellogg, manu1 ←
14:03:54 <Zakim> +scor
Zakim IRC Bot: +scor ←
14:05:41 <scor> zakim, who is on the phone?
Stéphane Corlosquet: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:05:50 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
14:06:06 <Zakim> +Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven ←
14:06:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see niklasl, gkellogg, manu1, scor, OpenLink_Software, Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see niklasl, gkellogg, manu1, scor, OpenLink_Software, Steven ←
14:06:29 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
14:06:30 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
14:07:01 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
14:07:04 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
14:07:44 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:07:55 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Apr/0016.html
14:07:57 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
14:08:07 <manu1> scribenick: scor
(Scribe set to Stéphane Corlosquet)
14:08:17 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←
14:08:39 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
14:09:08 <manu1> Topic: Implementation Status
14:09:32 <scor> niklasl: re. my own implementation, it passes all regular tests
Niklas Lindström: re. my own implementation, it passes all regular tests ←
14:09:47 <scor> ... adapted it to the Jena interface
... adapted it to the Jena interface ←
14:09:51 <manu1> https://github.com/niklasl/clj-rdfa
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/niklasl/clj-rdfa ←
14:10:20 <scor> ... solves 1) easy to adapt to any other framework, 2) can use Jena reasoner to use vocabulary expansion
... solves 1) easy to adapt to any other framework, 2) can use Jena reasoner to use vocabulary expansion ←
14:10:46 <scor> manu1: very good work, will help people using java to parse RDFa
Manu Sporny: very good work, will help people using java to parse RDFa ←
14:11:14 <gkellogg> Current EARL report: http://rdfa.info/earl-reports/
Gregg Kellogg: Current EARL report: http://rdfa.info/earl-reports/ ←
14:11:17 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
14:11:26 <scor> manu1: we have 3 three fully compliant RDFa 1.1 implementations: Gregg's, Ivan's and Niklas'
Manu Sporny: we have 3 three fully compliant RDFa 1.1 implementations: Gregg's, Ivan's and Niklas' ←
14:11:30 <ShaneM> zakim, ??P0 is ShaneM
Shane McCarron: zakim, ??P0 is ShaneM ←
14:11:30 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM; got it ←
14:12:06 <scor> gkellogg: some tests have been added since the last EARL report. I believe the three parsers are still passing all tests
Gregg Kellogg: some tests have been added since the last EARL report. I believe the three parsers are still passing all tests ←
14:12:25 <scor> gkellogg: only gkellogg's and Ivan's are passing vocab expansion
Gregg Kellogg: only gkellogg's and Ivan's are passing vocab expansion ←
14:12:38 <scor> niklasl: should have the vocab expansion working by the end of the month
Niklas Lindström: should have the vocab expansion working by the end of the month ←
14:13:06 <scor> manu1: been working on librdfa - taking longer due to the lack of pure C libs
Manu Sporny: been working on librdfa - taking longer due to the lack of pure C libs ←
14:13:26 <scor> ... trying to keep memory usage as low as possible
... trying to keep memory usage as low as possible ←
14:14:04 <scor> gkellogg: interested to see how fast it performs compared to the clojure implementation
Gregg Kellogg: interested to see how fast it performs compared to the clojure implementation ←
14:14:15 <scor> manu1: librdfa is well underway
Manu Sporny: librdfa is well underway ←
14:14:36 <scor> ShaneM: planning to have my implementation done by the end of the month but not sure I'll make it
Shane McCarron: planning to have my implementation done by the end of the month but not sure I'll make it ←
14:16:03 <scor> manu1: spoke with Lin Clark - there isn't a good PHP implementation of RDFa 1.1 and that could affect Drupal 8. We need to focus on getting a PHP implementation ready after RDFa 1.1 hits REC.
Manu Sporny: spoke with Lin Clark - there isn't a good PHP implementation of RDFa 1.1 and that could affect Drupal 8. We need to focus on getting a PHP implementation ready after RDFa 1.1 hits REC. ←
14:18:29 <Zakim> -niklasl
Zakim IRC Bot: -niklasl ←
14:19:20 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:19:20 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←
14:23:51 <Zakim> +??P30
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P30 ←
14:23:54 <scor> gkellogg: Someone came forward with questions on javascript
Gregg Kellogg: Someone came forward with questions on javascript ←
14:23:59 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P30
Niklas Lindström: zakim, I am ??P30 ←
14:23:59 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +niklasl; got it ←
14:24:09 <scor> gkellogg: possibly a js implementation on the way
Gregg Kellogg: possibly a js implementation on the way ←
14:24:16 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-133: Processing step bug for [typed resource]
14:24:26 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/133
Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/133 ←
14:25:05 <scor> gkellogg: overview: one of the changes we made was typeof being magnetic to about or other properties
Gregg Kellogg: overview: one of the changes we made was typeof being magnetic to about or other properties ←
14:25:10 <scor> ... but we forgot to add a step in the spec that brings it inline with the prose in the spec.
... but we forgot to add a step in the spec that brings it inline with the prose in the spec. ←
14:25:28 <manu1> Gregg's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Mar/0020.html
Manu Sporny: Gregg's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Mar/0020.html ←
14:26:22 <scor> manu1: I agree with gkellogg on the processing rule bug and his proposal to fix it.
Manu Sporny: I agree with gkellogg on the processing rule bug and his proposal to fix it. ←
14:26:24 <scor> gkellogg: Ivan suggested a slightly different wording and put it in a version of the spec on his machine, pending the decision of the WG
Gregg Kellogg: Ivan suggested a slightly different wording and put it in a version of the spec on his machine, pending the decision of the WG ←
14:26:26 <gkellogg> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Mar/0031.html
Gregg Kellogg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Mar/0031.html ←
14:27:14 <niklasl> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
14:27:15 <scor> manu1: does anyone believe this is a substantive change?
Manu Sporny: does anyone believe this is a substantive change? ←
14:27:19 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
14:27:37 <scor> niklasl: I don't think so, if I recall correctly, this is what RDFa 1.0 does
Niklas Lindström: I don't think so, if I recall correctly, this is what RDFa 1.0 does ←
14:27:39 <scor> gkellogg: yes
Gregg Kellogg: yes ←
14:27:59 <ivan> chiming in: this fix to the processing rules is addressing an inconsistency in the specification
Ivan Herman: chiming in: this fix to the processing rules is addressing an inconsistency in the specification ←
14:28:38 <gkellogg> Proposed changes from Ivan:
Gregg Kellogg: Proposed changes from Ivan: ←
14:28:39 <gkellogg> - the case when everything happens on the root element, described in the first part of 5.1, should also be included
Gregg Kellogg: - the case when everything happens on the root element, described in the first part of 5.1, should also be included ←
14:28:40 <gkellogg> - the last step of 5.1, ie, setting the current object resource, should not happen in this case. @about attracts ('absorbs') the @typeof and @property should be used with the textual outcome. Editorially, what I did was to take the current bulleted items one level deeper in the bulleted items
Gregg Kellogg: - the last step of 5.1, ie, setting the current object resource, should not happen in this case. @about attracts ('absorbs') the @typeof and @property should be used with the textual outcome. Editorially, what I did was to take the current bulleted items one level deeper in the bulleted items ←
14:29:14 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
14:29:57 <manu1> ack gkellogg
Manu Sporny: ack gkellogg ←
14:30:09 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
14:30:09 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
14:30:10 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
14:30:33 <scor> gkellogg: the fact it's been there for so long indicates it is not a substantive change, since the test suite has always been consistent
Gregg Kellogg: the fact it's been there for so long indicates it is not a substantive change, since the test suite has always been consistent ←
14:31:47 <scor> ivan: these is an inconsistency in the document, the prose is inconsistent with the steps, though all tests were correct from the beginning
Ivan Herman: there is an inconsistency in the document, the prose is inconsistent with the steps, though all tests were correct from the beginning ←
14:31:55 <scor> s/these/there
14:32:47 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Fix the inconsistency in the RDFa Core 1.1 processing rules regarding @typeof and @about usage by adopting language that effectively achieves what Gregg has proposed.
PROPOSED: Fix the inconsistency in the RDFa Core 1.1 processing rules regarding @typeof and @about usage by adopting language that effectively achieves what Gregg has proposed. ←
14:32:59 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:33:02 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
14:33:02 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
14:33:03 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:33:07 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:33:08 <scor> scor: +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
14:33:10 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:33:22 <MacTed> PROPOSAL: Fix the inconsistency in the RDFa Core 1.1 between processing rules and explanatory text regarding @typeof and @about usage by adopting language that effectively achieves what Gregg has proposed.
PROPOSED: Fix the inconsistency in the RDFa Core 1.1 between processing rules and explanatory text regarding @typeof and @about usage by adopting language that effectively achieves what Gregg has proposed. ←
14:33:27 <scor> q+
q+ ←
14:34:06 <manu1> ack scor
Manu Sporny: ack scor ←
14:34:24 <manu1> scor: Clarification - to our knowledge, there is no library that implemented the mistake in the processing steps, right?
Stéphane Corlosquet: Clarification - to our knowledge, there is no library that implemented the mistake in the processing steps, right? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:34:27 <manu1> Ivan: That's correct.
Ivan Herman: That's correct. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:34:32 <manu1> manu: Yes.
Manu Sporny: Yes. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:35:03 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
14:35:03 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
14:35:04 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:35:04 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:35:07 <scor> scor: +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
14:35:08 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:35:11 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:35:13 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:35:17 <manu1> RESOLVED: Fix the inconsistency in the RDFa Core 1.1 between processing rules and explanatory text regarding @typeof and @about usage by adopting language that effectively achieves what Gregg has proposed.
RESOLVED: Fix the inconsistency in the RDFa Core 1.1 between processing rules and explanatory text regarding @typeof and @about usage by adopting language that effectively achieves what Gregg has proposed. ←
14:35:59 <scor> ivan: I have made the changes already but only locally. I'd appreciate if someone could look at the text before I commit
Ivan Herman: I have made the changes already but only locally. I'd appreciate if someone could look at the text before I commit ←
14:36:23 <scor> gkellogg: ok, I'll do that
Gregg Kellogg: ok, I'll do that ←
14:36:20 <manu1> Topic: Responses to Henri Sivonen
14:36:29 <manu1> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Mar/0081.html
Manu Sporny: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Mar/0081.html ←
14:36:36 <manu1> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Mar/0082.html
Manu Sporny: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Mar/0082.html ←
14:37:24 <scor> manu1: the overall agreement we came to for ISSUE-130 and ISSUE-132 is that it's up to the host language to decide how RDFa is integrated in that host language - this has always been the case.
Manu Sporny: the overall agreement we came to for ISSUE-130 and ISSUE-132 is that it's up to the host language to decide how RDFa is integrated in that host language - this has always been the case. ←
14:37:35 <scor> ... Henri has both agreed with some of the changes and disagreed with other ones.
... Henri has both agreed with some of the changes and disagreed with other ones. ←
14:37:42 <scor> ... I think my response to him was not clear enough regarding where the substantive changes were made (HTML+RDFa) and where the non-substantive changes were made (RDFa Core).
... I think my response to him was not clear enough regarding where the substantive changes were made (HTML+RDFa) and where the non-substantive changes were made (RDFa Core). ←
14:38:08 <scor> ... there were substantive changes, but these applied to HTML5+RDFa, specifically
... there were substantive changes, but these applied to HTML5+RDFa, specifically ←
14:38:26 <scor> ... but the changes we made to Core were not substantive, they just clarified what was already understood.
... but the changes we made to Core were not substantive, they just clarified what was already understood. ←
14:38:42 <scor> ... we put the word "optional" beside the @src attribute to make it more clear, thus, no substantive change.
... we put the word "optional" beside the @src attribute to make it more clear, thus, no substantive change. ←
14:39:26 <scor> ... does anybody believe that we made a substantive change to RDFa Core in either ISSUE-130 or ISSUE-132?
... does anybody believe that we made a substantive change to RDFa Core in either ISSUE-130 or ISSUE-132? ←
14:40:09 <scor> niklasl: there was not actionable outcome due to this change, in the spec, so no. My processor didn't change at all.
Niklas Lindström: there was not actionable outcome due to this change, in the spec, so no. My processor didn't change at all. ←
14:40:09 <scor> Discussion and agreement that no substantive change was made to RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 based based on the outcome to ISSUE-132 and ISSUE-130. Agreement that substantive changes were made to HTML+RDFa 1.1 and that it will require another Last Call.
Discussion and agreement that no substantive change was made to RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 based based on the outcome to ISSUE-132 and ISSUE-130. Agreement that substantive changes were made to HTML+RDFa 1.1 and that it will require another Last Call. ←
14:49:08 <scor> manu1: Henri doesn't agree with the use of @rel and @rev everywhere. The group felt this was necessary to reduce divergence between XHTML+RDFa and HTML+RDFa and also because @rel and @rev exists in HTML markup today.
(No events recorded for 8 minutes)
Manu Sporny: Henri doesn't agree with the use of @rel and @rev everywhere. The group felt this was necessary to reduce divergence between XHTML+RDFa and HTML+RDFa and also because @rel and @rev exists in HTML markup today. ←
14:49:08 <scor> manu1: Going through Henri's responses one by one to make sure we covered everything...
Manu Sporny: Going through Henri's responses one by one to make sure we covered everything... ←
14:49:35 <scor> manu1: He agrees with our changes to the spec text based on the resolution to ISSUE-132. He disagrees that it was not a substantive change. The Working Group disagrees with Henri that it was a substantive change to RDFa Core 1.1 and notes three things: 1) That RDFa Core does not talk about what the content model of other languages should be, that is up to the Host Language, 2) @src has always been an optional attribute and was placed into the RDFa 1.0 specification because it was targeted at XHTML1, once it was split out into Core, @src became an optional attribute for the Host Language to include if it deemed appropriate, and 3) a substantive change was made to HTML+RDFa to only allow @href and @src on elements where it was already allowed by HTML5.
Manu Sporny: He agrees with our changes to the spec text based on the resolution to ISSUE-132. He disagrees that it was not a substantive change. The Working Group disagrees with Henri that it was a substantive change to RDFa Core 1.1 and notes three things: 1) That RDFa Core does not talk about what the content model of other languages should be, that is up to the Host Language, 2) @src has always been an optional attribute and was placed into the RDFa 1.0 specification because it was targeted at XHTML1, once it was split out into Core, @src became an optional attribute for the Host Language to include if it deemed appropriate, and 3) a substantive change was made to HTML+RDFa to only allow @href and @src on elements where it was already allowed by HTML5. ←
14:49:55 <scor> manu1: Regarding ISSUE-130, he agrees that it should be up to the Host Language to specify which RDFa attributes to support and where. He disagrees that @rel and @rev should be allowed everywhere from a legacy RDFa 1.0 document conformance standpoint, although it seems that he would be okay with the processor rules not changing. He agrees with the @src and @href change to HTML+RDFa, but did not see spec text that achieves this. This is on my plate and I will make sure it gets into the HTML+RDFa specification. He disagrees that the use of @rel and @rev everywhere cannot be removed without cutting two of the more useful features of RDFa - namely forward chaining and reverse chaining. Doing so would unnecessarily limit the flexibility of the language. It is not clear why he disagrees, but the WG feels that removing @rel and @rev everywhere would 1) make it impossible to express certain types of markup patterns, as previously explained, from being expressible and 2) lead to a needless difference between XHTML+RDFa and HTML+RDFa. So, the Working Group still feels that @rel and @rev should still be allowed everywhere in HTML+RDFa and disagrees with Henri. Finally, Henri disagrees that these changes were not substantive. We should clarify that the group feels that the changes were substantive for the HTML+RDFa specification, but were not substantive to RDFa Core.
Manu Sporny: Regarding ISSUE-130, he agrees that it should be up to the Host Language to specify which RDFa attributes to support and where. He disagrees that @rel and @rev should be allowed everywhere from a legacy RDFa 1.0 document conformance standpoint, although it seems that he would be okay with the processor rules not changing. He agrees with the @src and @href change to HTML+RDFa, but did not see spec text that achieves this. This is on my plate and I will make sure it gets into the HTML+RDFa specification. He disagrees that the use of @rel and @rev everywhere cannot be removed without cutting two of the more useful features of RDFa - namely forward chaining and reverse chaining. Doing so would unnecessarily limit the flexibility of the language. It is not clear why he disagrees, but the WG feels that removing @rel and @rev everywhere would 1) make it impossible to express certain types of markup patterns, as previously explained, from being expressible and 2) lead to a needless difference between XHTML+RDFa and HTML+RDFa. So, the Working Group still feels that @rel and @rev should still be allowed everywhere in HTML+RDFa and disagrees with Henri. Finally, Henri disagrees that these changes were not substantive. We should clarify that the group feels that the changes were substantive for the HTML+RDFa specification, but were not substantive to RDFa Core. ←
14:50:14 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Regarding ISSUE-130 and ISSUE-132, the Working Group agrees that substantive changes were made to the HTML+RDFa specification. Substantive changes were NOT made to the RDFa Core specification.
PROPOSED: Regarding ISSUE-130 and ISSUE-132, the Working Group agrees that substantive changes were made to the HTML+RDFa specification. Substantive changes were NOT made to the RDFa Core specification. ←
14:50:25 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
14:50:26 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:50:27 <scor> scor: +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
14:50:28 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:50:31 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
14:50:33 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:50:37 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:50:38 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:50:45 <manu1> RESOLVED: Regarding ISSUE-130 and ISSUE-132, the Working Group agrees that substantive changes were made to the HTML+RDFa specification. Substantive changes were NOT made to the RDFa Core specification.
RESOLVED: Regarding ISSUE-130 and ISSUE-132, the Working Group agrees that substantive changes were made to the HTML+RDFa specification. Substantive changes were NOT made to the RDFa Core specification. ←
14:51:07 <manu1> Topic: xhv:license vs. cc:license
14:52:33 <scor> ivan: users of RDFa would expect the cc:license when using license in HTML, not the xhv:license
Ivan Herman: users of RDFa would expect the cc:license when using license in HTML, not the xhv:license ←
14:53:09 <manu1> q+
Manu Sporny: q+ ←
14:53:11 <scor> .. if we change to cc: we have to change the tests and a backward incompatibility
.. if we change to cc: we have to change the tests and a backward incompatibility ←
14:53:34 <niklasl> q+
Niklas Lindström: q+ ←
14:53:52 <scor> manu1: I agree with you, but I'm concerned it would have a disruptive effect in the short term (though a good change in the long term)
Manu Sporny: I agree with you, but I'm concerned it would have a disruptive effect in the short term (though a good change in the long term) ←
14:53:55 <scor> q+
q+ ←
14:54:53 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
14:54:59 <manu1> scor: Want me to crawl the data?
Stéphane Corlosquet: Want me to crawl the data? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:55:13 <manu1> manu1: That would be useful - to figure out which is used more - although, we shouldn't read too much into that.
Manu Sporny: That would be useful - to figure out which is used more - although, we shouldn't read too much into that. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:55:17 <ShaneM> I am stuck on this call, but my opinion is that we should use xvh:license and that it should resolve to cc:license. I think.
Shane McCarron: I am stuck on this call, but my opinion is that we should use xvh:license and that it should resolve to cc:license. I think. ←
14:55:18 <manu1> ack niklasl
Manu Sporny: ack niklasl ←
14:55:36 <gkellogg> q+ can we add owl:sameAs to vocab doc?
Gregg Kellogg: q+ can we add owl:sameAs to vocab doc? ←
14:55:53 <scor> niklasl: I agree with ivan but wonder if that change is necessary - maybe best for people to be explicit and use a prefix
Niklas Lindström: I agree with ivan but wonder if that change is necessary - maybe best for people to be explicit and use a prefix ←
14:56:04 <manu1> ack scor
Manu Sporny: ack scor ←
14:56:12 <manu1> scor: Would it be possible to generate two triples?
Stéphane Corlosquet: Would it be possible to generate two triples? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:56:23 <manu1> Ivan: Not without changing the processing rules. I don't think we should go there.
Ivan Herman: Not without changing the processing rules. I don't think we should go there. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:56:57 <scor> ivan: Gregg, do we have a vocabulary document?
Ivan Herman: Gregg, do we have a vocabulary document? ←
14:57:00 <scor> gkellogg: no
Gregg Kellogg: no ←
14:57:33 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
14:58:14 <scor> gkellogg: we discussed the in November: were there not some consideration about using xhv in XHTML and not in Core?
Gregg Kellogg: we discussed the in November: were there not some consideration about using xhv in XHTML and not in Core? ←
14:58:37 <scor> manu1: that would bring some inconsistencies between the triples generated depending on the host language
Manu Sporny: that would bring some inconsistencies between the triples generated depending on the host language ←
14:59:00 <scor> ivan: you are right, we don't have this split, best not to have it
Ivan Herman: you are right, we don't have this split, best not to have it ←
14:59:14 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The "license" term should continue to point to the xhv:license URL.
PROPOSED: The "license" term should continue to point to the xhv:license URL. ←
14:59:18 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:59:19 <niklasl> +1
Niklas Lindström: +1 ←
14:59:20 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:59:21 <scor> scor: +1
Stéphane Corlosquet: +1 ←
14:59:23 <gkellogg> +0
Gregg Kellogg: +0 ←
14:59:38 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:59:39 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
14:59:39 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:59:54 <manu1> RESOLVED: The "license" term should continue to point to the xhv:license URL.
RESOLVED: The "license" term should continue to point to the xhv:license URL. ←
15:01:28 <manu1> Topic: Proposed Recommendation Preparation
15:01:25 <scor> manu1: Ivan, what do we need to do for the next phase for Proposed Recommendation?
Manu Sporny: Ivan, what do we need to do for the next phase for Proposed Recommendation? ←
15:01:35 <Zakim> -Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: -Steven ←
15:01:41 <Zakim> -ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: -ShaneM ←
15:02:15 <manu1> Ivan: We need to get the implementation report together, which we pretty much have with the EARL reports.
Ivan Herman: We need to get the implementation report together, which we pretty much have with the EARL reports. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:02:27 <manu1> Ivan: We have enough implementations to go to PR right now, which is great.
Ivan Herman: We have enough implementations to go to PR right now, which is great. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:02:38 <scor> ivan: We may want to list partial implementations, like any23
Ivan Herman: We may want to list partial implementations, like any23 ←
15:02:49 <Zakim> -MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←
15:03:12 <manu1> Ivan: I am not worried about meeting PR... to meet transition we need member votes. WBS form going out to AC - yes/no for RDFa 1.1. We need to talk with organizations and see if they intend to vote on RDFa.
Ivan Herman: I am not worried about meeting PR... to meet transition we need member votes. WBS form going out to AC - yes/no for RDFa 1.1. We need to talk with organizations and see if they intend to vote on RDFa. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
Formatted by CommonScribe