IRC log of rdfa on 2007-10-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:50:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:50:58 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:51:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:51:08 [mhausenblas]
zakim, this will be SW_SWD(RDFa)
14:51:08 [Zakim]
ok, mhausenblas; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
14:51:17 [mhausenblas]
Meeting: W3C RDF-in-XHTML TF - Telecon 2007-10-18, 15:00 UTC
14:51:24 [mhausenblas]
14:51:31 [mhausenblas]
-> previous 2007-10-11
14:51:38 [mhausenblas]
Chair: Ben
14:51:45 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:51:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mhausenblas
14:51:51 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:55:15 [Ralph]
Ralph has joined #rdfa
14:55:57 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:55:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mhausenblas
14:57:18 [msporny]
or a list of Zakim commands?
14:57:51 [Ralph]
-> Zakim irc bot instructions
14:58:29 [Zakim]
SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started
14:58:32 [Zakim]
14:59:04 [Zakim]
14:59:06 [Zakim]
14:59:07 [Zakim]
15:02:26 [markbirbeck]
markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
15:02:51 [markbirbeck]
zakim, gimme the codes please.
15:02:51 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'gimme the codes please', markbirbeck
15:02:55 [Zakim]
15:02:57 [markbirbeck]
zakim, codes?
15:02:57 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, markbirbeck.
15:03:02 [markbirbeck]
zakim, code?
15:03:02 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck
15:03:11 [Ralph]
zakim, ??p11 is Manu
15:03:12 [Zakim]
+Manu; got it
15:03:45 [Zakim]
15:03:47 [markbirbeck]
zakim, i am ?
15:03:47 [Zakim]
+markbirbeck; got it
15:04:58 [Zakim]
15:05:28 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.395.aaaa
15:05:39 [benadida]
benadida has joined #rdfa
15:06:34 [Simone]
Zakim, who i speaking?
15:06:34 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, Simone.
15:06:36 [Ralph]
zakim, aaaa is Ben
15:06:36 [Zakim]
+Ben; got it
15:06:39 [Simone]
Zakim, who is speaking?
15:06:49 [Zakim]
Simone, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ben (85%), Michael_Hausenblas (20%)
15:06:53 [Zakim]
15:06:54 [msporny]
I can re-connect if needed, Ralph?
15:07:01 [Simone]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
15:07:01 [Zakim]
+Simone; got it
15:08:10 [Simone]
Zakim, who is speaking?
15:08:20 [Zakim]
Simone, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Michael_Hausenblas (68%), Simone (16%)
15:10:19 [benadida]
next telecon is Friday 26 october, 1400 UTC
15:10:29 [benadida]
zakim, pick a victim
15:10:29 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Simone
15:10:36 [mhausenblas]
ScribeNick: mhausenblas
15:10:54 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:10:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mhausenblas
15:12:21 [mhausenblas]
Ben: There are certain edge cases we need to iron out, but we are on a good way
15:12:28 [mhausenblas]
Topic: Action Items
15:12:35 [mhausenblas]
15:14:19 [mhausenblas]
Ralph: Syntax Document - process issues are clear for Shane/Steven?
15:14:41 [mhausenblas]
Shane: Steven is currently on holiday - rest offline
15:15:32 [mhausenblas]
Ben: So this will be the draft we propose for publication
15:15:37 [mhausenblas]
[NEW] ACTION: All look at tests 46 - 53 and write what you believe the correct triples are [recorded in]
15:15:51 [mhausenblas]
-> Ben's init the thread
15:17:05 [mhausenblas]
-- done
15:17:05 [mhausenblas]
-- done
15:17:23 [mhausenblas]
[NEW] ACTION: Ben to set up a proper scribe schedule [recorded in]
15:17:27 [mhausenblas]
-- continues
15:17:32 [mhausenblas]
[NEW] ACTION: Michael to find a more appropriate predicate than foaf:knows for TC46-53 [recorded in]
15:17:38 [mhausenblas]
-> Manu implicitly resovled it
15:17:51 [mhausenblas]
-> Manu implicitly resovled it
15:17:59 [mhausenblas]
-> foaf:maker
15:18:09 [mhausenblas]
-- done
15:18:19 [mhausenblas]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben to add status of various implementations on [recorded in]
15:18:24 [mhausenblas]
-- continues
15:18:29 [mhausenblas]
[PENDING] ACTION: Michael make sure to confirm a design for checking that the ASK SPARQL queries evaluate (yes/no) [recorded in]
15:18:35 [mhausenblas]
-- done
15:18:42 [mhausenblas]
-> Michael's proposal
15:19:32 [mhausenblas]
[PENDING] ACTION: Michael to create "Microformats done right -- unambiguous taxonomies via RDF" on the wiki [recorded in]
15:20:02 [mhausenblas]
-- continues
15:20:23 [mhausenblas]
Topic: Test Cases Review and Approval (46-53, 54-56)
15:20:35 [mhausenblas]
-> Manu's proposed TC validator
15:20:42 [Ralph]
scribenick: ralph
15:20:54 [Ralph]
Michael: Manu proposed a wonderful implementation of a test case validator
15:21:06 [Ralph]
... I'd accept a formal action shared with Manu to implement this
15:21:20 [Ralph]
... both as an on-line service and as a downloadable tool
15:21:41 [Ralph]
... downloadable version would run locally but still fetch test resources from
15:21:59 [Ralph]
Manu: Ivan's help is necessary for pyrdfa bits
15:23:35 [Ralph]
ACTION: Michael and Manu investigate with Ivan the implementation of the test case validator proposal on
15:23:49 [mhausenblas]
-> TC
15:24:17 [Ralph]
-- test 46
15:24:35 [Ralph]
Michael: I've not yet made the foaf:knows -> foaf:maker change; please assume that correction has been made
15:24:47 [Ralph]
Manu, Ben: 46 ok
15:25:27 [Ralph]
Mark: we're still going to have the @instanceof discussion, right?
15:26:14 [Ralph]
Ben: I'm pretty sure Mark and I agree in the case of test 46
15:26:33 [Ralph]
Mark: the @instanceof discussion that Ben and I are having does apply to test 46 as well
15:26:47 [Ralph]
... I've sent Ben a long email
15:26:57 [Ralph]
... I would apply @instanceof to a subject that sits before the @rel
15:27:18 [Ralph]
Ben: so you'd have @instanceof inheriting something?
15:27:34 [Ralph]
Mark: no, @instance of would create a bnode on the div and @rel and @instanceof both apply to this bnode
15:27:52 [Ralph]
Ben: so there would be 2 bnodes?
15:27:53 [Ralph]
Mark: yes
15:28:29 [Ralph]
... I'm not opposed to changing if there are use cases that require Ben's interpretation
15:28:43 [Ralph]
Manu: this will affect all the test cases
15:30:21 [Ralph]
Michael: shall we put test 46 on hold pending decision on how @instanceof works?
15:30:24 [Ralph]
Ben: yes
15:30:28 [Ralph]
-- test 47
15:31:17 [Ralph]
Mark: if the question is whether these test are consistent, then, yes; but if the question is whether we agree on the triples, then no
15:31:26 [Ralph]
... I think @instanceof should apply to the subject
15:31:41 [Ralph]
Ben: I'm confused because I thought these were the ones we agreed on
15:32:12 [Ralph]
Mark: if @resource was on its own, then I'd agree that @instanceof applies to it
15:33:02 [Ralph]
... e.g. if @rel were omitted from test 47, then we might have the same interpretation
15:34:25 [mhausenblas]
15:35:16 [Ralph]
Ralph: are these differences in interpretation of the language in the document or differences revealed by having some actual triples to look at?
15:35:46 [Ralph]
Mark: to be fair, I've agreed to let the document proceed even though I disagree with some of it
15:36:05 [Ralph]
... looks to me like test 48 works the way I expect
15:36:26 [Ralph]
Ben: and in my evaluation I'd said that test 48 did not match my interpretation
15:37:20 [Ralph]
-> "Evaluation of Test Cases 46-53" [Ben 2007-10-17]
15:37:30 [Ralph]
Manu: perhaps there is agreement on test 49?
15:37:47 [Ralph]
Mark, Ben: test 49 is OK
15:37:57 [Ralph]
Mark: I say @about always applies
15:38:12 [Ralph]
Ben: this is the one wierd case where I could be convinced to create a bnode
15:38:56 [Ralph]
... I agree this test gives the right triples
15:39:11 [Ralph]
RESOLVED: test 49 approved
15:39:54 [Ralph]
q+ to ask about semantics in 49
15:40:03 [Ralph]
Manu: perhaps we agree on 50 also?
15:40:23 [mhausenblas]
15:40:23 [msporny]
15:40:23 [msporny]
_:a <> "John Doe" .
15:40:23 [msporny]
_:a <>
15:40:23 [msporny]
<> .
15:40:26 [msporny]
15:40:41 [Ralph]
Manu: the sparql is wrong; should be as posted above
15:41:22 [Ralph]
Mark: test 50 is fine with me
15:41:32 [Ralph]
... bnode created on the DIV and the property applies to that bnode
15:41:41 [Ralph]
RESOLVED: test 50 approved
15:42:01 [Zakim]
Ralph, you wanted to ask about semantics in 49
15:42:24 [Ralph]
Ralph: TAG would object to us suggesting that's home page has rdf:type foaf:Person
15:42:30 [Ralph]
Michael: add #me then
15:42:34 [Ralph]
Ralph: OK
15:43:13 [Ralph]
-- test 51
15:43:46 [Ralph]
Mark: on test 51 I'd still create the bnode first and attach the property to it
15:44:02 [Ralph]
Ben: we've said for a long time that @instanceof is syntactic sugar for a child element
15:44:11 [Ralph]
Mark: yes, but not any element
15:44:21 [Ralph]
... we'd said that LINK and META apply to the parent
15:44:29 [mhausenblas]
we could at least resolve the semantic issue in TC51
15:44:36 [mhausenblas]
as Manu put outin his review
15:44:37 [Ralph]
Shane: child of LINK or when LINK is a child? LINK's content model is empty
15:44:38 [mhausenblas]
<h1 instanceof="foaf:Document" property="foaf:topic">
15:44:55 [mhausenblas]
s/outin/out in
15:45:49 [Ralph]
Mark: we used to have @role be a long-handed way of adding predicates to a parent element
15:46:06 [Ralph]
Manu: the question is about precedence
15:46:23 [Ralph]
... it seems consistent that @instanceof without @about always creates a bnode
15:46:36 [Ralph]
Ben: the question is "on what element"?
15:46:50 [Ralph]
... I think the property picks up a subject before the bnode is identified
15:47:18 [markbirbeck]
s/we used to have @role/we used to have <link rel="xh:role" href="..." \/>/
15:48:02 [Ralph]
Ralph: if you need to make assumptions about the order of processing of attributes, does that affect either of these interpretations?
15:48:17 [Ralph]
Ben, Mark: we think order of processing does affect both interpretations
15:48:28 [Ralph]
Manu: @@scribe didn't capture
15:48:46 [Ralph]
Ben: one interpretation makes certain use cases very difficult to write
15:48:51 [Ralph]
Manu: but not impossible
15:49:08 [Ralph]
... the goal is to make something that is consistent
15:49:15 [Ralph]
Ben: no, the goal is to meet our use cases
15:49:31 [Ralph]
... how do you write "I know another person"?
15:49:41 [Ralph]
... without chaining, this becomes very difficult
15:49:50 [Ralph]
... came up first when we considered bibtex
15:50:11 [Ralph]
... wanting to give an rdf:type to the author of a paper
15:50:32 [Ralph]
Manu: we may have conflicting goals; consistency vs. use cases
15:50:38 [Ralph]
Ben: I think we've always had those conflicts
15:50:55 [msporny]
<div about="#me" rel="foaf:knows" resource="#ben">
15:51:02 [Ralph]
... I agree that Mark's interpretation is definitely consistent
15:51:49 [Ralph]
-- test 52
15:51:56 [markbirbeck]
I see Ben's issue. I've realised that we are missing one element of the 'old' chaining that we don't have now.
15:52:01 [markbirbeck]
In this:
15:52:03 [Ralph]
Ben: if I heard Mark correctly, we might agree on 52
15:52:04 [markbirbeck]
<div about="#me" rel="foaf:knows" instanceof="foaf:Person">
15:52:04 [markbirbeck]
<div rel="foaf:knows" instanceof="foaf:Person">
15:52:04 [markbirbeck]
<div rel="foaf:knows" instanceof="foaf:Person">
15:52:04 [markbirbeck]
...for ever...
15:52:04 [markbirbeck]
15:52:05 [markbirbeck]
15:52:07 [markbirbeck]
15:52:15 [markbirbeck]
We used to make the object/subject line up.
15:52:25 [Ralph]
Ben: Mark's example in irc is a good example
15:52:36 [markbirbeck]
If we were to explicitly 'align' them, would that resolve it for you, Ben?
15:53:13 [Ralph]
Mark: in the case of 52, I see @resource working just like @about
15:53:21 [Ralph]
Michael: needs #me again
15:53:45 [Ralph]
Mark, Ben: agree on 52
15:53:58 [Ralph]
Mark: the example I just posted in irc ...
15:54:21 [Ralph]
... when we first had chaining (before we'd removed and readded it), it was more explicit that the object of one became the subject of the other
15:54:36 [Ralph]
... with one more rule, I think this addresses Ben's use case
15:55:01 [Ralph]
RESOLVED: test 52 approved, pending addition of #me
15:55:05 [Ralph]
-- test 53
15:55:32 [Ralph]
Ben: one triple is missing from the SPARQL
15:55:37 [Ralph]
... add #me again
15:56:27 [Ralph]
Michael: in the future, I will clean proposed test cases for semantic bugs first before adding them to the test suite
15:56:35 [Ralph]
... for discussion
15:57:07 [Ralph]
Manu: consider completely different properties; e.g. type foaf:Document
15:57:47 [msporny]
15:57:47 [msporny]
15:57:47 [msporny]
15:57:47 [msporny]
<> .
15:57:47 [msporny]
15:57:48 [msporny]
15:57:50 [msporny]
"John Doe".
15:57:52 [msporny]
15:58:42 [Ralph]
Ben, Mark: agree with Manu's triples in irc
15:58:51 [Ralph]
RESOLVED, test 53 accepted pending addition of #me
15:59:11 [Ralph]
-- test 54
15:59:35 [Ralph]
(multiple properites)
15:59:44 [Ralph]
Ben, Mark: look good to us
15:59:51 [Ralph]
RESOLVED, test 54 accepted
15:59:55 [Ralph]
-- test 55
16:00:03 [Ralph]
Ben: 55 uses @rel instead of @property
16:00:31 [Ralph]
Ben, Mark: 55 looks good to us
16:00:35 [Ralph]
RESOLVED, test 55 accepted
16:00:47 [Ralph]
-- test 56
16:00:52 [Ralph]
Michael: 56 is a smorgasbord
16:01:27 [Ralph]
Ben: if it's a reasonable and correct example, I see no reason to refuse it as a test
16:01:40 [Ralph]
Michael: I want to understand if it introduces anything new
16:01:45 [Ralph]
... it's a matter of time
16:01:52 [Ralph]
... I don't see anything new in test 56
16:02:11 [Ralph]
Manu: might catch if a developer has inserted a whole bunch of hacks
16:02:44 [Ralph]
Mark: consider numbering such tests starting with a higher number
16:02:49 [Ralph]
Ralph: how about 200 ? :)
16:02:53 [Ralph]
Manu: like torture tests?
16:03:15 [Ralph]
Michael: I'll pick 1000
16:03:47 [msporny]
16:03:47 [msporny]
16:03:47 [msporny]
16:03:47 [msporny]
<> .
16:03:47 [msporny]
16:03:48 [msporny]
<> "Weekend off in Iona" .
16:03:50 [msporny]
16:03:52 [msporny]
16:03:55 [msporny]
"2006-10-21"^^<> .
16:03:56 [msporny]
16:03:58 [msporny]
16:04:00 [msporny]
"2006-10-23"^^<> .
16:04:02 [msporny]
16:04:04 [msporny]
<> <> .
16:04:06 [msporny]
16:04:08 [msporny]
<> "Iona, UK" .
16:04:10 [msporny]
16:04:12 [msporny]
"rdf:type" needed to be expanded, also missing a "." at the end of
16:04:14 [msporny]
the next-to-last statement.
16:04:17 [Ralph]
Manu: there are two errors in the SPARQL; missing rdf:type
16:04:42 [Ralph]
Mark, Ben: 56 looks good to us
16:04:52 [Ralph]
RESOLVED: test 56 accepted, renamed to 1001
16:05:02 [mhausenblas]
-> Ivan's concerns on approved TC
16:05:33 [Ralph]
Michael: Ivan asked us to reconsider tests 11 and 29
16:05:49 [Ralph]
... both concern the handling of whitespace
16:06:02 [Ralph]
Ben: Ivan has a good point particularly w.r.t. handling of PRE
16:06:21 [Ralph]
ACTION: Ben enter Ivan's concerns in as issues in tracker
16:06:59 [Ralph]
Shane: the syntax draft asks "what is the default value for @instanceof"
16:07:04 [Ralph]
... this is a schema implementation issue
16:07:09 [Ralph]
... do we know an answer?
16:07:14 [Ralph]
Ben: can the default be null?
16:07:24 [Ralph]
Mark: but that would make every DIV be a bnode
16:07:33 [Ralph]
Ben: that's why I proposed null
16:08:05 [Ralph]
... since @instanceof changes the way subject interpretation occurs, it should not have a default value
16:08:15 [Ralph]
... @instanceof="" should not be the same as omitting @instanceof
16:08:48 [Ralph]
Shane: so the answer is there is no default value from a DTD implementation perspective, but there is a default interpretation from an RDFa implementation perspective
16:09:17 [Ralph]
scribenick: mhausenblas
16:09:19 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:09:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mhausenblas
16:09:25 [mhausenblas]
Topic: State of Documents
16:09:45 [mhausenblas]
Shane: Work on Syntax and will forward it to Ralph
16:10:13 [mhausenblas]
Ben: Regarding Primer I worked in a lot of comments, incl. BobDC
16:10:31 [mhausenblas]
... won't be around on upcoming SWD telecon
16:11:44 [mhausenblas]
Ben: Need to request it via mail
16:12:13 [mhausenblas]
Ralph: Also remind the chairs for critical issues
16:12:15 [mhausenblas]
Topic: Schedule for next Telecons
16:12:26 [mhausenblas]
Next Friday, 26 Oct 14:00UTC
16:12:36 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:12:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mhausenblas
16:12:43 [Zakim]
16:12:45 [Zakim]
16:12:45 [Zakim]
16:12:49 [Zakim]
16:12:54 [Ralph]
zakim, list participants
16:12:54 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Michael_Hausenblas, Ralph, Manu, markbirbeck, ShaneM, +1.617.395.aaaa, Ben, Simone
16:13:08 [Zakim]
16:14:18 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:14:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mhausenblas
16:17:42 [Ralph]
[I have just changed next week's telecon reservation to Friday, 1 hour earlier -- ]
16:17:51 [Ralph]
zakim, bye
16:17:51 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Michael_Hausenblas, Ralph, Manu, markbirbeck, ShaneM, +1.617.395.aaaa, Ben, Simone
16:17:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfa
16:18:04 [Ralph]
rrsagent, bye
16:18:04 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in :
16:18:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Michael and Manu investigate with Ivan the implementation of the test case validator proposal on [1]
16:18:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:18:04 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben enter Ivan's concerns in as issues in tracker [2]
16:18:04 [RRSAgent]
recorded in