IRC log of rdfa on 2008-04-17
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:54:46 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
- 14:54:46 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-irc
- 14:54:51 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #rdfa
- 14:54:58 [Ralph]
- zakim, this will be rdfa
- 14:54:58 [Zakim]
- ok, Ralph; I see SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
- 14:55:03 [Ralph]
- Meeting: RDF-in-XHTML Task Force
- 14:55:38 [Ralph]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0105.html
- 14:55:45 [Ralph]
- rrsagent, please make record public
- 14:55:48 [Zakim]
- SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has now started
- 14:55:55 [Zakim]
- +??P0
- 14:56:04 [msporny]
- msporny has joined #rdfa
- 14:56:17 [Ralph]
- -> http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-rdfa-minutes.html previous 2008-04-10
- 14:56:23 [Ralph]
- zakim, ??p0 is probably Manu
- 14:56:23 [Zakim]
- +Manu?; got it
- 14:56:43 [msporny]
- hi Ralph :)
- 14:56:46 [msporny]
- want me to scribe?
- 14:56:55 [Ralph]
- Regrets: Michael, Simone, Shane, Ralph
- 14:57:02 [Steven]
- Hi, Like Ralph, and for the same reason, I will be late
- 14:57:18 [Ralph]
- [Chairs telecon]
- 14:57:32 [msporny]
- Is RSS agent in here yet?
- 14:57:44 [Ralph]
- R_R_S Agent is, yes :)
- 14:58:05 [Ralph]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 14:58:05 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-irc#T14-58-05
- 14:58:08 [msporny]
- =P - never noticed that it's RRS agent...
- 14:59:38 [msporny]
- scribenick: msporny
- 15:01:37 [msporny]
- Chair: Ben
- 15:03:32 [markbirbeck]
- markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
- 15:04:28 [benadida]
- benadida has joined #rdfa
- 15:04:40 [Zakim]
- +Ben_Adida
- 15:05:35 [markbirbeck]
- hello everyone
- 15:06:01 [markbirbeck]
- I'm not going to be able to make the telecon, I'm afraid...things have been very hectic this week.
- 15:06:09 [benadida]
- :(
- 15:06:12 [benadida]
- thoughts on primer?
- 15:06:25 [markbirbeck]
- I am nearly done on a new draft, but didn't get the few hours I needed to finish it off.
- 15:06:31 [markbirbeck]
- Will try to do it tomorrow.
- 15:06:37 [benadida]
- yes, that would be really fantastic.
- 15:06:44 [Steven]
- I like the primer.
- 15:06:55 [Steven]
- I have some small comments on the current one
- 15:07:17 [markbirbeck]
- I'm so sorry...but I haven't even read your latest draft. That shows how bad things are! (I normally read it the moment it comes off the press. ;))
- 15:07:54 [msporny]
- Regrets: Michael, Simone, Shane, Ralph, Mark
- 15:08:10 [Steven]
- I will be late like Ralph (on the chairs call at the moment)
- 15:08:33 [Steven]
- I liked the comment about tags not in namespaces being like all files in one folder
- 15:09:31 [msporny]
- Ben: Mark hasn't been able to read the Primer yet.
- 15:09:50 [msporny]
- Ben: He wanted namespaces and more detail in the Primer.
- 15:09:56 [msporny]
- Topic: Action Items
- 15:10:04 [msporny]
- ACTION: Ben followup with Fabien on getting his RDFa GRDDL transform transferred to W3C [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
- 15:10:07 [benadida]
- s/namespaces/no namespaces
- 15:10:26 [msporny]
- http://www.w3.org/2008/04/10-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
- 15:10:39 [Zakim]
- +Ralph
- 15:10:40 [msporny]
- -- CONTINUES
- 15:10:50 [Ralph]
- [I'm not really here -- listening with half an ear]
- 15:11:03 [Steven]
- hmm, Ralph has two phones
- 15:11:06 [msporny]
- ACTION: Ben followup with Fabien on getting his RDFa GRDDL transform transferred to W3C [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/11/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action01]
- 15:11:12 [msporny]
- -- CONTINUES
- 15:11:31 [msporny]
- Ben: I'm waiting on Fabien for that one.
- 15:11:34 [msporny]
- ACTION: Ben to follow up on media type discussion with Steven, Ralph, and TAG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/20-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
- 15:11:37 [msporny]
- -- CONTINUES
- 15:11:53 [msporny]
- Ben: Ralph needs to give an update on the media type discussion.
- 15:11:59 [Ralph]
- [yes, I own Ben some language on media types]
- 15:12:04 [Steven]
- media type is ongoing within W3C; seems to be going our way
- 15:12:17 [msporny]
- ACTION: Ben to respond to issue 87 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/28-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
- 15:12:18 [Steven]
- I think TimBL will say something about it at AC meeting in Beijing
- 15:12:21 [msporny]
- -- CONTINUES
- 15:12:27 [msporny]
- Ben: Waiting for response from Mark.
- 15:12:34 [msporny]
- ACTION: Manu to enable EARL output in RDFa Test Harness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action13]
- 15:12:36 [msporny]
- -- CONTINUES
- 15:12:44 [msporny]
- ACTION: Mark and Shane update Syntax to change @instanceof to @typeof [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
- 15:12:45 [Ralph]
- s/I own/I owe/
- 15:12:46 [msporny]
- -- DONE
- 15:12:55 [msporny]
- ACTION: Mark to move _:a bnode notation to normative section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/03-rdfa-minutes.html#action05]
- 15:12:58 [msporny]
- -- CONTINUES
- 15:13:09 [msporny]
- ACTION: Mark/Shane include issue 89 correction in Changes section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-rdfa-minutes.html#action11]
- 15:13:11 [msporny]
- -- CONTINUES
- 15:13:18 [msporny]
- ACTION: Michael to create 'RDFa for uF users' on RDFa Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]
- 15:13:21 [msporny]
- -- CONTINUES
- 15:13:28 [msporny]
- ACTION: Ralph to review response to Christian Hoertnagl. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/27-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
- 15:13:33 [msporny]
- -- CONTINUES
- 15:14:14 [Steven]
- ha!
- 15:14:16 [msporny]
- Topic: New Primer
- 15:14:26 [Steven]
- I have some small comments
- 15:14:36 [msporny]
- Ben: Bob Du Charme had some good tweaks to it, which were integrated.
- 15:14:39 [Steven]
- Not sure about using the @ notation in the primer
- 15:14:42 [msporny]
- Ben: Some of the diagrams were tweaked.
- 15:15:00 [Steven]
- There is some confusion between the names of the old and new HTML WGs
- 15:15:12 [msporny]
- Ben: @rel, @about - @ notation now documented.
- 15:15:45 [msporny]
- Manu: The document looks good to me so far, I think it's ready to go to WG
- 15:16:02 [msporny]
- Ben: Ralph said he was astonished it was shorter... but that may mean WG has a negative reaction to that.
- 15:16:10 [msporny]
- Ben: I don't think we should lengthen it.
- 15:16:40 [benadida]
- Manu: the wiki should fill the gap
- 15:17:23 [Ralph]
- I don't think we should bring *everything* from the old Primer back in, but I want more time to look for gaps
- 15:17:45 [benadida]
- before we talk to the WG? How much more time?
- 15:18:18 [Ralph]
- but, again, if Manu, Steven, and Mark feel the current draft is good enough to replace the WD then I'll accept that consensus
- 15:18:23 [msporny]
- Ben: He's not going to Beijing, so he should be able to handle it before next Tuesday.
- 15:18:40 [Ralph]
- has Mark replied previously?
- 15:18:56 [msporny]
- Ben: Steven seems to only has minor comments, Manu likes the current draft, Mark still needs to respond.
- 15:18:58 [benadida]
- Mark has sent private comments that were overall positive but that I cannot count as a full endorsement yet :)
- 15:19:24 [Ralph]
- then I propose we show it to the WG and ask for their comments
- 15:19:33 [benadida]
- Steven: assuming the chance for minor edits, do you think this is good to send to the WG?
- 15:19:41 [msporny]
- Ben: Manu thinks Primer is good enough to go to the WG, minor edits may still need to be done.
- 15:19:44 [Ralph]
- s/Steven:/Steven,/
- 15:19:46 [Steven]
- I'd be ok with that
- 15:20:39 [msporny]
- Ben: Primer could be written in a variety of different ways, we need to push forward and get it out there.
- 15:22:13 [msporny]
- Ben: Primer is mainly for people that just know HTML - it's a high level overview.
- 15:22:51 [Ralph]
- I absolutely agree that the exposition in the new Primer editor's draft is better; I'm mostly worried about coverage
- 15:23:37 [msporny]
- Manu: I think it is a good sign that we're starting to re-use material in the Primer in our presentations on RDFa.
- 15:23:44 [benadida]
- a big change in this primer is that we're not going for 100% coverage, we're going for enough coverage to *start* writing RDFa, and then you go to recipes on the wiki for more.
- 15:23:48 [Ralph]
- sure, "enough" is a judgement call :)
- 15:24:00 [msporny]
- Manu: Really, we should see if Mark is okay with it and if we have that much consensus here, then we should push it to the WG.
- 15:24:09 [Ralph]
- I hope that the Wiki material will lead to improved versions of the Primer
- 15:24:33 [benadida]
- ACTION: Ben to chat immediately with Mark and see if the Primer is "good enough" for WG review.
- 15:25:14 [benadida]
- Steven, if you're reading this, do send a list of the issues with the Primer, happy to incorporate small changes
- 15:25:26 [Steven]
- Ben, I will send them tomorrow
- 15:25:59 [msporny]
- Topic: XHTML namespace quick resolution
- 15:26:30 [msporny]
- Manu: I thought it was supposed to be a GRDDL pointer
- 15:26:36 [benadida]
- +1
- 15:26:37 [msporny]
- Ben: Yep - same here.
- 15:27:07 [msporny]
- Topic: ISSUE-109 and ISSUE-110
- 15:27:19 [benadida]
- ISSUE-109: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/109
- 15:27:35 [benadida]
- "do something with @cite"
- 15:27:45 [Ralph]
- [I'd be happy to offically take an action to draft something for the XHTML namespace document]
- 15:28:07 [Ralph]
- -1 to taking up @cite in this version
- 15:28:19 [msporny]
- Manu: I agree with Mark's response.
- 15:28:28 [msporny]
- Ben: We're in agreement that we shouldn't do anything with @cite.
- 15:28:36 [msporny]
- Ben: Mark agrees with that as well.
- 15:28:45 [msporny]
- Ben: Don't know what Steven or Michael would say.
- 15:29:02 [msporny]
- Ben: Ralph agrees, but he thinks the response should be more complete.
- 15:29:06 [Steven]
- zakim, dial steven-617
- 15:29:14 [Zakim]
- ok, Steven; the call is being made
- 15:29:20 [Zakim]
- +Steven
- 15:29:42 [msporny]
- Ralph: For @cite the answers clear, we defer to a future version.
- 15:29:51 [msporny]
- Ralph: But we should be more specific in the response.
- 15:30:01 [msporny]
- Ben: So we should formally restate Mark's answer?
- 15:30:49 [msporny]
- Ralph: Mark gives far too much detail - I don't think we need to give all that detail.
- 15:30:56 [msporny]
- Ben: So, we're not doing anything with @cite.
- 15:30:58 [msporny]
- Steven: I agree.
- 15:31:50 [msporny]
- Steven: We should say we considered it, but there are others that could fit in this category - we decided to defer in the name of simplicity.
- 15:32:33 [benadida]
- PROPOSE to resolve ISSUE-109: "We considered @cite but realized that many other attributes would then require RDFa interpretation and that doing so is not simple. We defer this issue to a future version of RDFa."
- 15:33:05 [msporny]
- Ralph: We may want to find those discussions.
- 15:33:15 [msporny]
- +1 for current PROPOSAL
- 15:33:20 [Steven]
- +1
- 15:33:27 [benadida]
- RESOLVED ISSUE-109: "We considered @cite but realized that many other attributes would then require RDFa interpretation and that doing so is not simple. We defer this issue to a future version of RDFa."
- 15:33:43 [msporny]
- RESOLUTION: ISSUE-109: "We considered @cite but realized that many other attributes would then require RDFa interpretation and that doing so is not simple. We defer this issue to a future version of RDFa.
- 15:34:24 [benadida]
- ACTION: Ben to respond to ISSUE-109 with (if possible) pointers to past discussion of @cite
- 15:34:57 [msporny]
- Ben: Issue 110 is about @src being subject or object.
- 15:35:13 [Steven]
- link to response?
- 15:35:34 [msporny]
- Manu: I thought the response was good.
- 15:35:40 [msporny]
- one sec, Steven... finding it ...
- 15:35:57 [benadida]
- Mark's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Mar/0311.html
- 15:36:17 [msporny]
- Ben: First on the issue - do we agree we shouldn't re-open it.
- 15:36:20 [msporny]
- Manu: Yes.
- 15:36:22 [msporny]
- Ralph: Yes.
- 15:36:37 [msporny]
- Steven - woof.
- 15:37:02 [msporny]
- Steven: Yes, agreed - don't re-open.
- 15:37:33 [msporny]
- Ben: We should respond with the summary that Ralph wrote up and a pointer to Mark's e-mail.
- 15:38:35 [benadida]
- PROPOSAL: "on ISSUE-110, we considered @src in both subject and object positions, and resolved that the current situation - it's equivalent to @about - is more useful to authors."
- 15:38:59 [msporny]
- +1 for proposal
- 15:39:04 [msporny]
- Steven: +1 for proposal
- 15:39:10 [Ralph]
- +1
- 15:39:11 [msporny]
- Ralph: +1 for proposal
- 15:39:13 [msporny]
- RESOLUTION: ISSUE-110: "we considered @src in both subject and object positions, and resolved that the currewe considered @src in both subject and object positions, and resolved that the current situation - it's equivalent to @about - is more useful to authors."nt situation - it's equivalent to @about - is more useful to authors."
- 15:40:23 [Steven]
- zakim, dial steven-mobile
- 15:40:23 [Zakim]
- ok, Steven; the call is being made
- 15:40:24 [Zakim]
- +Steven
- 15:40:31 [msporny]
- Ben: Steven, Ralph - about the Primer - do you agree that we ask Mark and Michael and see if they're fine with it - and push it forward?
- 15:40:39 [Steven]
- zakim, drop steven
- 15:40:39 [Zakim]
- 'steven' is ambiguous, Steven
- 15:40:48 [Steven]
- zakim, drop steven-mobile
- 15:40:48 [Zakim]
- sorry, Steven, I do not see a party named 'steven-mobile'
- 15:41:02 [Zakim]
- -Steven
- 15:41:34 [Steven]
- zakim, dial steven-mobile
- 15:41:34 [Zakim]
- ok, Steven; the call is being made
- 15:41:35 [Zakim]
- +Steven
- 15:41:50 [msporny]
- Ben: we need a document that people are comfortable with pointing people to a document.
- 15:42:02 [msporny]
- Ben: Are you okay with that line of thinking?
- 15:42:08 [msporny]
- Ralph: Yes - we don't want to hold this up.
- 15:42:24 [Steven]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 15:42:24 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Manu?, Ben_Adida, Ralph, Steven, Steven (muted)
- 15:42:25 [Zakim]
- -Steven
- 15:42:35 [Steven]
- zakim, dial steven-mobile
- 15:42:35 [Zakim]
- ok, Steven; the call is being made
- 15:42:36 [Zakim]
- +Steven
- 15:42:47 [Zakim]
- -Steven
- 15:43:53 [msporny]
- Topic: Test Cases
- 15:44:05 [msporny]
- Ben: Is it more useful to do them on the call.
- 15:44:47 [msporny]
- http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/
- 15:44:54 [msporny]
- Steven is now walking down steps :)
- 15:45:19 [msporny]
- Manu: First one is test #100
- 15:46:26 [benadida]
- xmlns:ex="http://www.example.org#"
- 15:46:36 [msporny]
- Manu: Is that correct?
- 15:48:50 [Ralph]
- [looking up RFC 3986 http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html to see if that's a legitimate URI]
- 15:49:58 [msporny]
- http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/0100.xhtml
- 15:53:01 [Ralph]
- [actually, http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.2.2 is where we need to look]
- 15:53:12 [benadida]
- Manu: we had agreed that the proper canonicalization for our tests involved stuffing all namespaces into each top-level element.
- 15:53:42 [benadida]
- Ben: so this will likely fail for Firefox-based JavaScript (mine and Elias's), but that's okay we can document it.
- 15:57:26 [benadida]
- TC 100: +1 from Ben
- 15:57:34 [msporny]
- TC 100: +1 from Manu
- 15:57:36 [benadida]
- TC 101: +1 from Ben
- 15:57:40 [msporny]
- TC 101: +1 from Manu
- 15:59:02 [benadida]
- TC 102: +1 from Ben
- 15:59:11 [msporny]
- Manu: TC 102: +1 from Manu
- 16:00:42 [benadida]
- TC103: +1 from Ben
- 16:01:42 [msporny]
- TC103: +1 from Manu
- 16:02:02 [msporny]
- Ralph: Maybe we should use a different example namespace
- 16:02:16 [msporny]
- Ben: Let's change to "http://example.org/"
- 16:03:16 [msporny]
- Ralph: Let's change to "http://rdfa.example.org/"
- 16:04:14 [Ralph]
- or http://example.org/rdf/
- 16:04:28 [Ralph]
- (which has the same number of octets :)
- 16:06:16 [msporny]
- Topic: ISSUE-112: RDFa described in purely functional terms?
- 16:06:23 [msporny]
- Ben: In an ideal world, great.
- 16:06:47 [msporny]
- Ralph: Agree - it'll take a very long time to do that.
- 16:06:55 [Ralph]
- s/very//
- 16:07:01 [Ralph]
- I'm not sure how long it will take
- 16:07:14 [Ralph]
- but I am pretty sure it will take longer than 2 months and that's too long IMHO
- 16:08:04 [msporny]
- Steven: Functional is very nice - but would take longer than we have right now. In a future version, we might want to do it in functional terms.
- 16:09:07 [msporny]
- Ralph: It will depend on the author - functional or algorithmic.
- 16:09:21 [msporny]
- Steven: It's good for implementors, but isn't so good for authors.
- 16:09:36 [msporny]
- Ralph: We'll get feedback over the next year or two.
- 16:10:20 [benadida]
- PROPOSE: "on ISSUE-112, we sympathize with the comment, but believe it would take too long to write up a functional description."
- 16:10:38 [benadida]
- PROPOSE: "on ISSUE-112, we sympathize with the comment, but believe it would take too long to write up an error-free functional description."
- 16:12:26 [msporny]
- Steven: Maybe we can do a normative one which is algorithmic, and a non-normative one that is functional.
- 16:12:40 [msporny]
- Ben: We shouldn't commit ourselves to doing something like that right now.
- 16:12:40 [benadida]
- PROPOSE: "on ISSUE-112, we sympathize with the comment, but believe it would take too long given the importance of wrapping up RDFa very soon, to write up a functional description."
- 16:12:53 [msporny]
- Ralph: Yes, we shouldn't add to the workload that we're currently under.
- 16:14:41 [benadida]
- PROPOSE: "on ISSUE-112, we sympathize with the comment, but, given the community pull to finalize RDFa, it would take too long to write up a functional description."
- 16:14:58 [msporny]
- +1
- 16:15:02 [benadida]
- PROPOSE: "on ISSUE-112, we sympathize with the comment, but, given the community pull to finalize RDFa, it would take too long to write up an error-free functional description."
- 16:15:02 [Ralph]
- +1
- 16:15:19 [benadida]
- +1 from Steven on the phone
- 16:15:20 [msporny]
- RESOLUTION: "on ISSUE-112, we sympathize with the comment, but, given the community pull to finalize RDFa, it would take too long to write up a functional description."
- 16:18:57 [Ralph]
- -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Apr/0050.html "Draft response to: TAG comments on: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-curie-20071126/ "CURIE Syntax 1.0"" [Steven 2008-04-16]
- 16:21:17 [Zakim]
- -Steven
- 16:21:18 [Zakim]
- -Ben_Adida
- 16:21:33 [Ralph]
- zakim, list attendees
- 16:21:33 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been Manu?, Ben_Adida, Ralph, Steven
- 16:21:41 [Ralph]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 16:21:41 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/17-rdfa-minutes.html Ralph
- 16:22:52 [Zakim]
- -Manu?
- 16:22:53 [Zakim]
- -Ralph
- 16:23:00 [Zakim]
- SW_SWD(RDFa)11:00AM has ended
- 16:23:01 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Manu?, Ben_Adida, Ralph, Steven