13:45:26 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/06/17-rdfa-irc ←
13:45:56 <manu> trackbot, prepare telecon
Manu Sporny: trackbot, prepare telecon ←
13:45:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:46:00 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
13:46:00 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 14 minutes ←
13:46:01 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
13:46:01 <trackbot> Date: 17 June 2010
13:46:05 <manu> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jun/0056.html
13:46:07 <manu> Chair: Manu
13:46:11 <manu> Scribe: Manu
(Scribe set to Manu Sporny)
13:46:19 <manu> scribenick: manu
13:47:51 <manu> Regrets: Ivan, Knud
13:57:48 <manu> Present: Manu, Steven, Benjamin, Toby, MarkB, Shane
14:00:15 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 14 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started ←
14:00:19 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:00:20 <manu> zakim, I am IPCaller
zakim, I am IPCaller ←
14:00:21 <Zakim> ok, manu, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, manu, I now associate you with [IPcaller] ←
14:00:27 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:00:33 <markbirbeck> zakim, code?
Mark Birbeck: zakim, code? ←
14:00:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see [IPcaller] ←
14:00:42 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck ←
14:01:54 <Zakim> +ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM ←
14:03:57 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
Steven Pemberton: zakim, dial steven-617 ←
14:03:57 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Steven; the call is being made ←
14:04:01 <Zakim> +Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven ←
14:23:18 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-26: Error Reporting Mechanism (on Ivan)
(No events recorded for 19 minutes)
14:23:29 <Steven> issue-26?
14:23:29 <trackbot> ISSUE-26 -- Do we need an error reporting mechanism for RDFa? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-26 -- Do we need an error reporting mechanism for RDFa? -- open ←
14:23:29 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/26
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/26 ←
14:24:24 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←
14:24:59 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:26:27 <markbirbeck> q+
Mark Birbeck: q+ ←
14:26:38 <Steven> ack mark
Steven Pemberton: ack mark ←
14:27:05 <manu> Manu: This concerns two things... do we want an error reporting mechanism? if so, what does it look like?
Manu Sporny: This concerns two things... do we want an error reporting mechanism? if so, what does it look like? ←
14:27:27 <manu> Mark: Well, you say RDFa Processor, but we also have an RDFa API now. We may have to come at it from two directions.
Mark Birbeck: Well, you say RDFa Processor, but we also have an RDFa API now. We may have to come at it from two directions. ←
14:27:46 <manu> Mark: We may want to have something about this on RDFa Core, but we may want to also have something in the RDFa API spec.
Mark Birbeck: We may want to have something about this on RDFa Core, but we may want to also have something in the RDFa API spec. ←
14:28:11 <manu> Mark: Perhaps we shouldn't put Events in RDFa Core... but maybe we want to spec Events in RDFa API.
Mark Birbeck: Perhaps we shouldn't put Events in RDFa Core... but maybe we want to spec Events in RDFa API. ←
14:28:29 <Benjamin> +1 to add events about errors or warnings in the RDFa API
Benjamin Adrian: +1 to add events about errors or warnings in the RDFa API ←
14:29:10 <manu> Manu: Anyone opposed to having an error mechanism?
Manu Sporny: Anyone opposed to having an error mechanism? ←
14:29:16 <manu> Steven: I think it would be useful to have.
Steven Pemberton: I think it would be useful to have. ←
14:29:40 <manu> PROPOSAL: RDFa should have a warning and error reporting mechanism.
PROPOSED: RDFa should have a warning and error reporting mechanism. ←
14:29:49 <manu> Manu: +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:29:50 <markbirbeck> +1
Mark Birbeck: +1 ←
14:29:53 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
14:30:07 <Steven> +1 depending on form
Steven Pemberton: +1 depending on form ←
14:30:19 <tinkster> DataParser.parse(store, callback); /* callback is a function called back for each error. */
Toby Inkster: DataParser.parse(store, callback); /* callback is a function called back for each error. */ ←
14:30:20 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:31:02 <tinkster> +1 API should; -1 for Core having one.
Toby Inkster: +1 API should; -1 for Core having one. ←
14:31:08 <manu> RESOLVED: RDFa should have an warning and error reporting mechanism.
RESOLVED: RDFa should have an warning and error reporting mechanism. ←
14:32:02 <markbirbeck> @tinkster Yes, that's one option. I favour using DOM 2 Events myself, but maybe that just means that your 'callback' is an EventHandler object.
Mark Birbeck: @tinkster Yes, that's one option. I favour using DOM 2 Events myself, but maybe that just means that your 'callback' is an EventHandler object. ←
14:33:08 <manu> Manu: (explains current proposal)
Manu Sporny: (explains current proposal) ←
14:33:20 <tinkster> A processor implementing RDFa but not the RDFa API might want to have a method of passing back errors to whatever invoked it, but what that method is seems beyond the scope of RDFa to me. The RDFa API seems the only place where we should get involved in how errors are reported back.
Toby Inkster: A processor implementing RDFa but not the RDFa API might want to have a method of passing back errors to whatever invoked it, but what that method is seems beyond the scope of RDFa to me. The RDFa API seems the only place where we should get involved in how errors are reported back. ←
14:33:48 <Steven> Not sure if I agree
Steven Pemberton: Not sure if I agree ←
14:33:54 <Steven> having an error graph could work
Steven Pemberton: having an error graph could work ←
14:34:16 <ShaneM> but RDF doesn';t really define how to access alternate graphs?
Shane McCarron: but RDF doesn';t really define how to access alternate graphs? ←
14:34:28 <markbirbeck> @tinkster: I don't think there's anything wrong with defining an error graph in core. But definitely it shouldn't define behaviour like events. That's for the API.
Mark Birbeck: @tinkster: I don't think there's anything wrong with defining an error graph in core. But definitely it shouldn't define behaviour like events. That's for the API. ←
14:34:47 <Steven> agree on that
Steven Pemberton: agree on that ←
14:35:20 <manu> Mark: Shane, I think that's true, but this can be processor-specific. All we're really saying is that we should define some RDF terminology to define what errors are... and that these are available to the processor in a certain way.
Mark Birbeck: Shane, I think that's true, but this can be processor-specific. All we're really saying is that we should define some RDF terminology to define what errors are... and that these are available to the processor in a certain way. ←
14:35:50 <Benjamin> q+ on asking What is the advantage of storing warning and errors instead of just raising them as events?
Benjamin Adrian: q+ on asking What is the advantage of storing warning and errors instead of just raising them as events? ←
14:35:54 <manu> Shane: What if we define /something/ in the RDFa namespace that mean error or warning, but they can be returned in the regular graph.
Shane McCarron: What if we define /something/ in the RDFa namespace that mean error or warning, but they can be returned in the regular graph. ←
14:35:55 <markbirbeck> q+
Mark Birbeck: q+ ←
14:35:58 <manu> ack benjamin
ack benjamin ←
14:35:58 <Zakim> Benjamin, you wanted to comment on asking What is the advantage of storing warning and errors instead of just raising them as events?
Zakim IRC Bot: Benjamin, you wanted to comment on asking What is the advantage of storing warning and errors instead of just raising them as events? ←
14:36:09 <manu> Benjamin: I don't see the advantages of warnings and errors in the default graph.
Benjamin Adrian: I don't see the advantages of warnings and errors in the default graph. ←
14:36:30 <manu> ack mark
ack mark ←
14:36:40 <ShaneM> remember that there are many processors that are not embedded in a web page - no event mechanism
Shane McCarron: remember that there are many processors that are not embedded in a web page - no event mechanism ←
14:36:56 <manu> Mark: There are two things going on here - whether we have triples that indicate warnings, that's one question, whether or not they're in the default graph is another question.
Mark Birbeck: There are two things going on here - whether we have triples that indicate warnings, that's one question, whether or not they're in the default graph is another question. ←
14:37:15 <Benjamin> @Shane, ok I see the point, but how do XML parsers solve this issue?
Benjamin Adrian: @Shane, ok I see the point, but how do XML parsers solve this issue? ←
14:37:17 <manu> Mark: People are doing this in different ways at the moment... I don't think it should be in the default graph.
Mark Birbeck: People are doing this in different ways at the moment... I don't think it should be in the default graph. ←
14:37:49 <ShaneM> okay - never mind
Shane McCarron: okay - never mind ←
14:37:54 <Steven> Agree, bad idea to put them in the default graph
Steven Pemberton: Agree, bad idea to put them in the default graph ←
14:38:51 <manu> Manu: Let's move this discussion to the mailing list.
Manu Sporny: Let's move this discussion to the mailing list. ←
14:38:58 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-5: @datatype and rdf:XMLLiteral (on Toby)
14:39:05 <manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/5
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/5 ←
14:39:18 <tinkster> I don't think this is a contraversial issue at all. Move to resolve immediately?
Toby Inkster: I don't think this is a contraversial issue at all. Move to resolve immediately? ←
14:39:49 <tinkster> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jun/0039.html!
Toby Inkster: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jun/0039.html! ←
14:39:55 <markbirbeck> q+
Mark Birbeck: q+ ←
14:40:07 <manu> Manu: (explains issue)
Manu Sporny: (explains issue) ←
14:40:11 <tinkster> that exclamation mark shouldn't be there.
Toby Inkster: that exclamation mark shouldn't be there. ←
14:40:23 <manu> Mark: We may want to have a token for XMLLiteral.
Mark Birbeck: We may want to have a token for XMLLiteral. ←
14:41:21 <tinkster> Mark++ e.g. datatype="xml"
Toby Inkster: Mark++ e.g. datatype="xml" ←
14:42:08 <markbirbeck> @tinkster: Actually, you're right...that's much better.:)
Mark Birbeck: @tinkster: Actually, you're right...that's much better.:) ←
14:42:14 <ShaneM> ++ tinkster
Shane McCarron: ++ tinkster ←
14:42:24 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:42:26 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:42:36 <markbirbeck> +1
Mark Birbeck: +1 ←
14:42:38 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
14:43:20 <manu> PROPOSAL: Add language to the RDFa Core specification that states that when a CURIE in a datatype is expanded, if it is the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype, generate an XMLLiteral.
PROPOSED: Add language to the RDFa Core specification that states that when a CURIE in a datatype is expanded, if it is the rdf:XMLLiteral datatype, generate an XMLLiteral. ←
14:43:57 <manu> PROPOSAL: Add language to the RDFa Core specification that states that when a CURIE in a datatype is expanded, if it is the RDF XMLLiteral URL, generate an XMLLiteral.
PROPOSED: Add language to the RDFa Core specification that states that when a CURIE in a datatype is expanded, if it is the RDF XMLLiteral URL, generate an XMLLiteral. ←
14:44:16 <manu> Manu: +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:44:20 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:44:21 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
14:44:23 <tinkster> +1
Toby Inkster: +1 ←
14:44:25 <markbirbeck> +1
Mark Birbeck: +1 ←
14:44:32 <Steven> ZAKIM, WHO IS NOISY?
Steven Pemberton: ZAKIM, WHO IS NOISY? ←
14:44:32 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:44:42 <Zakim> Steven, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Benjamin (4%), Steven (8%), ShaneM.a (44%)
Zakim IRC Bot: Steven, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Benjamin (4%), Steven (8%), ShaneM.a (44%) ←
14:44:44 <manu> RESOLVED: Add language to the RDFa Core specification that states that when a CURIE in a datatype is expanded, if it is the RDF XMLLiteral URL, generate an XMLLiteral.
RESOLVED: Add language to the RDFa Core specification that states that when a CURIE in a datatype is expanded, if it is the RDF XMLLiteral URL, generate an XMLLiteral. ←
14:45:07 <Steven> zakim, who is noisy?
Steven Pemberton: zakim, who is noisy? ←
14:45:17 <Zakim> Steven, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ShaneM.a (10%)
Zakim IRC Bot: Steven, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ShaneM.a (10%) ←
14:45:28 <ShaneM> zakim, mute me
Shane McCarron: zakim, mute me ←
14:45:28 <Zakim> ShaneM.a should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM.a should now be muted ←
14:45:31 <Steven> zakim, mute shane temporarily
Steven Pemberton: zakim, mute shane temporarily ←
14:45:31 <Zakim> ShaneM.a was already muted, Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM.a was already muted, Steven ←
14:45:53 <ShaneM> zakim, unmute me
Shane McCarron: zakim, unmute me ←
14:45:53 <Zakim> ShaneM.a should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM.a should no longer be muted ←
14:45:55 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-20: Deep Processing of XMLLiterals (on Mark)
14:46:05 <Steven> issue-20?
14:46:05 <trackbot> ISSUE-20 -- XMLLiteral content isn't processed for RDFa attributes in RDFa 1.0 - should this change in RDFa 1.1? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-20 -- XMLLiteral content isn't processed for RDFa attributes in RDFa 1.0 - should this change in RDFa 1.1? -- open ←
14:46:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/20
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/20 ←
14:46:39 <ShaneM> definitely not
Shane McCarron: definitely not ←
14:46:40 <manu> Manu: (explains issue)
Manu Sporny: (explains issue) ←
14:46:56 <Steven> I need a use case
Steven Pemberton: I need a use case ←
14:46:59 <manu> Manu: Anybody want to change default behavior from RDFa 1.0 - extract triples from XML Literal
Manu Sporny: Anybody want to change default behavior from RDFa 1.0 - extract triples from XML Literal ←
14:47:07 <tinkster> there are certainly good use cases.
Toby Inkster: there are certainly good use cases. ←
14:47:07 <ShaneM> it would break compatibility in a dramatic manner.,
Shane McCarron: it would break compatibility in a dramatic manner., ←
14:47:39 <tinkster> it would break backcompat, so would need to be done with an explicit opt-in.
Toby Inkster: it would break backcompat, so would need to be done with an explicit opt-in. ←
14:49:00 <tinkster> e.g. use case a blog. blog entry titles, authors, etc are marked up in RDFa.
Toby Inkster: e.g. use case a blog. blog entry titles, authors, etc are marked up in RDFa. ←
14:49:06 <manu> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Mar/0092.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Mar/0092.html ←
14:49:21 <tinkster> each entry has the content as an XMLLiteral.
Toby Inkster: each entry has the content as an XMLLiteral. ←
14:49:48 <tinkster> but perhaps the content contains data that could also be usefully exposed as RDFa...
Toby Inkster: but perhaps the content contains data that could also be usefully exposed as RDFa... ←
14:50:13 <manu> Mark: I wonder whether or not we could hold off on this...
Mark Birbeck: I wonder whether or not we could hold off on this... ←
14:50:47 <manu> Mark: I thought that most of the scenarios where you'd want XMLLiterals to "store" data - most of those scenarios could be solved using CDATA or COMMENTs.
Mark Birbeck: I thought that most of the scenarios where you'd want XMLLiterals to "store" data - most of those scenarios could be solved using CDATA or COMMENTs. ←
14:51:17 <manu> Mark: Perhaps we can escape the data in-line, so the RDFa parser stores it literally... if it is in "the structure" parse it as is.
Mark Birbeck: Perhaps we can escape the data in-line, so the RDFa parser stores it literally... if it is in "the structure" parse it as is. ←
14:51:51 <manu> Manu: Move discussion of this to the mailing list.
Manu Sporny: Move discussion of this to the mailing list. ←
14:52:06 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-27: Relative URIs (on Shane)
14:52:47 <Steven> issue-27?
14:52:47 <trackbot> ISSUE-27 -- Does TermorCURIEorURI allow relative URIs? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-27 -- Does TermorCURIEorURI allow relative URIs? -- open ←
14:52:47 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/27
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/27 ←
14:52:58 <manu> Manu: Any arguments for/against?
Manu Sporny: Any arguments for/against? ←
14:54:13 <manu> Shane: I don't think allowing relative URIs in a datatype make sense - it was not what we envisioned when we created datatype.
Shane McCarron: I don't think allowing relative URIs in a datatype make sense - it was not what we envisioned when we created datatype. ←
14:54:18 <markbirbeck> q+
Mark Birbeck: q+ ←
14:54:38 <tinkster> An argument against might be future extensibility. By disallowing these now, RDFa 1.2/2.0 might like to define some kind of token which looks a bit like a relative URI.
Toby Inkster: An argument against might be future extensibility. By disallowing these now, RDFa 1.2/2.0 might like to define some kind of token which looks a bit like a relative URI. ←
14:54:44 <manu> Steven: I'm uncomfortable with not allowing things... what do we lose by allowing relative URIs?
Steven Pemberton: I'm uncomfortable with not allowing things... what do we lose by allowing relative URIs? ←
14:55:00 <manu> Mark: I agree with Steven, how do we ban this? I think this was originally intended.
Mark Birbeck: I agree with Steven, how do we ban this? I think this was originally intended. ←
14:55:43 <ShaneM> q+ to argue with mark ;-)
Shane McCarron: q+ to argue with mark ;-) ←
14:55:52 <Steven> ack mark
Steven Pemberton: ack mark ←
14:55:52 <manu> Mark: It's a bit like the discussion on absolute URIs - we had issues with distinguishing with QNames - if the prefix is undefined, it's a URI.
Mark Birbeck: It's a bit like the discussion on absolute URIs - we had issues with distinguishing with QNames - if the prefix is undefined, it's a URI. ←
14:55:54 <manu> ack mark
ack mark ←
14:55:56 <Steven> ack shane
Steven Pemberton: ack shane ←
14:55:56 <Zakim> ShaneM.a, you wanted to argue with mark ;-)
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM.a, you wanted to argue with mark ;-) ←
14:55:56 <manu> ack shane
ack shane ←
14:56:38 <manu> Shane: You're right, except that this means that if I use a token and it's not defined, it's a relative URI.
Shane McCarron: You're right, except that this means that if I use a token and it's not defined, it's a relative URI. ←
14:57:02 <manu> Shane: Is it relative to the current vocab URI? Or the current base?
Shane McCarron: Is it relative to the current vocab URI? Or the current base? ←
14:58:02 <ShaneM> how does this concept work in conjunction with this resolution: RESOLVED: RDFa attributes containing all invalid values should be interpreted as those attributes with an empty attribute value. ←
Shane McCarron: how does this concept work in conjunction with this resolution: RESOLVED: RDFa attributes containing all invalid values should be interpreted as those attributes with an empty attribute value. ← ←
14:58:09 <manu> Manu: This is like our junk triples discussion.
Manu Sporny: This is like our junk triples discussion. ←
14:58:29 <manu> Mark: Well, they're not junk triples... they meant to create a triple, it's just the wrong one.
Mark Birbeck: Well, they're not junk triples... they meant to create a triple, it's just the wrong one. ←
14:58:57 <manu> Manu: What's the use case for this?
Manu Sporny: What's the use case for this? ←
14:59:10 <manu> Mark: If you're doing something like an OWL ontology, the predicates are the values in the ontology.
Mark Birbeck: If you're doing something like an OWL ontology, the predicates are the values in the ontology. ←
14:59:53 <manu> Mark: It's not a strong argument for it... but Stevens opening remark is fair... what do we gain by removing it?
Mark Birbeck: It's not a strong argument for it... but Stevens opening remark is fair... what do we gain by removing it? ←
15:00:01 <tinkster> If you're doing something like an OWL ontology, you can just set vocab="..." on your entire document anyway.
Toby Inkster: If you're doing something like an OWL ontology, you can just set vocab="..." on your entire document anyway. ←
15:00:23 <tinkster> We're not "removing it" per se - they're not allowed in RDFa 1.0 anyway.
Toby Inkster: We're not "removing it" per se - they're not allowed in RDFa 1.0 anyway. ←
15:02:27 <manu> Manu: Sounds like we don't have a s trong use case... we're not removing it, just saying it's undefined and it doesn't generate a triple.
Manu Sporny: Sounds like we don't have a s trong use case... we're not removing it, just saying it's undefined and it doesn't generate a triple. ←
15:03:16 <markbirbeck> q+
Mark Birbeck: q+ ←
15:03:23 <ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/#s_curieprocessing
Shane McCarron: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/#s_curieprocessing ←
15:03:43 <manu> q+ to end telecon
q+ to end telecon ←
15:04:24 <manu> Mark: So, basically if we "prevent" relative URIs... we have to detect them.
Mark Birbeck: So, basically if we "prevent" relative URIs... we have to detect them. ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#2) generated 2010-06-17 15:42:41 UTC by 'msporny', comments: 'Added agenda.'