Chatlog 2010-03-04

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

See CommonScribe Control Panel, original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

14:26:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:26:34 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:26:36 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:26:36 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:26:38 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
14:26:38 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 34 minutes
14:26:39 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
14:26:39 <trackbot> Date: 04 March 2010
14:26:47 <ivan> Chair: manu
14:28:06 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: RDFa WG Telco, agenda:
14:40:53 <Benjamin> Benjamin has joined #rdfa
14:41:41 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
14:43:51 <manu-work> manu-work has joined #rdfa
14:55:39 <Knud> Knud has joined #rdfa
14:57:05 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:57:12 <Zakim> +Knud
14:58:49 <Zakim> + +0785583aaaa
14:59:03 <tinkster> zakim, aaaa is me#
14:59:03 <Zakim> +me#; got it
14:59:13 <tinkster> zakim, aaaa is me
14:59:13 <Zakim> sorry, tinkster, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
14:59:24 <tinkster> zakim, i am aaaa
14:59:24 <Zakim> sorry, tinkster, I do not see a party named 'aaaa'
14:59:35 <mgylling> mgylling has joined #rdfa
14:59:46 <Zakim> +RobW
14:59:50 <manu> zakim, ?aaaa is tinkster
14:59:50 <Zakim> sorry, manu, I do not recognize a party named '?aaaa'
14:59:50 <RobW> RobW has joined #rdfa
14:59:51 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:59:51 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:59:51 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:00:06 <Zakim> +Benjamin
15:00:21 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:00:41 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
15:00:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see Knud, RobW, Ivan, Benjamin, [IPcaller]
15:00:42 <Zakim> On IRC I see RobW, mgylling, Knud, manu, ShaneM, Benjamin, Zakim, RRSAgent, Steven, ivan, tinkster, trackbot
15:00:50 <Zakim> +me#
15:01:11 <tinkster> zakim, i am +me#
15:01:12 <Zakim> sorry, tinkster, I do not see a party named '+me#'
15:01:23 <Zakim> +mgylling
15:01:23 <ivan> zakim, me# is tinkster
15:01:25 <Zakim> +tinkster; got it
15:01:32 <tinkster> zakim, zakim, mute me
15:01:32 <Zakim> I don't understand 'zakim, mute me', tinkster
15:01:35 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
15:01:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see Knud, RobW, Ivan, Benjamin, [IPcaller], tinkster, mgylling
15:01:47 <manu> zakim, I am [IP
15:01:47 <Zakim> ok, manu, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
15:01:52 <tinkster> zakim, mute me
15:01:52 <Zakim> tinkster should now be muted
15:01:59 <tinkster> zakim, unmute me
15:01:59 <Zakim> tinkster should no longer be muted
15:02:28 <manu> zakim, who is making noise?
15:02:38 <Zakim> manu, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Knud (56%), tinkster (10%), [IPcaller] (14%)
15:02:41 <Zakim> +ShaneM
15:02:43 <tinkster> zakim, mute me
15:02:43 <Zakim> tinkster should now be muted
15:02:45 <Knud> zakim, mute me
15:02:45 <Zakim> Knud should now be muted
15:02:57 <manu> zakim, mute ShaneM
15:02:57 <Zakim> ShaneM should now be muted
15:03:01 <Zakim> -ShaneM
15:03:24 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
15:03:24 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:03:25 <Zakim> +Steven
15:03:27 <Zakim> +ShaneM
15:03:34 <Steven> zakim, mute me
15:03:34 <Zakim> Steven should now be muted
15:04:12 <ShaneM> Scribe: ShaneM
15:04:21 <manu> Agenda for today:
15:04:25 <ShaneM> TOPIC: Action Items
15:04:39 <manu> trackbot, Action-3?
15:04:39 <trackbot> Sorry, manu, I don't understand 'trackbot, Action-3?'. Please refer to for help
15:04:44 <manu> trackbot, ACTION-3?
15:04:44 <trackbot> Sorry, manu, I don't understand 'trackbot, ACTION-3?'. Please refer to for help
15:04:49 <manu> ACTION-3?
15:04:49 <trackbot> ACTION-3 -- Manu Sporny to get in touch with LibXML developers about TC 142 -- due 2010-03-11 -- OPEN
15:04:49 <trackbot>
15:05:04 <manu> ACTION-10?
15:05:04 <trackbot> ACTION-10 -- Manu Sporny to get Toby to fill out Invited Expert form. -- due 2010-03-04 -- OPEN
15:05:04 <trackbot>
15:05:12 <manu> trackbot, close ACTION-10
15:05:13 <trackbot> ACTION-10 Get Toby to fill out Invited Expert form. closed
15:05:28 <tinkster> thanks
15:05:28 <manu> trackbot, comment ACTION-10 Toby is now an Invited Expert to RDFa WG
15:05:28 <trackbot> ACTION-10 Get Toby to fill out Invited Expert form. notes added
15:05:44 <manu> ACTION-11?
15:05:44 <trackbot> ACTION-11 -- Shane McCarron to suggest short names for each working group deliverable -- due 2010-03-01 -- OPEN
15:05:44 <trackbot>
15:06:19 <tinkster>
15:06:32 <manu>
15:07:00 <tinkster> W3C list emails contain an "Archived-At" header in the message headers.
15:07:26 <ShaneM> ivan: agrees with the suggested shortnames.  some issue with how data should be organized.
15:07:27 <manu> trackbot, close ACTION-11 
15:07:27 <trackbot> ACTION-11 Suggest short names for each working group deliverable closed
15:08:25 <ShaneM> TOPIC: ISSUE-4: Referenced version of XML Namespaces Document
15:08:27 <manu>
15:08:58 <manu> scribenick: manu
15:09:30 <manu> ShaneM: The XHTML+RDFa family spec has settled on XML1.0 4th edition, which is not the current publication
15:09:39 <manu> ShaneM: 5th edition is the latest version.
15:09:41 <tinkster> What about other current/potential host languages (e.g. SVG)?
15:09:50 <Steven> nmchar
15:10:06 <manu> ShaneM: This is already fixed, it was a typo in the spec, it's addressed in the errata and is fixed in the draft.
15:10:56 <RobW> RobW has joined #rdfa
15:11:31 <manu> trackbot, close ISSUE-4
15:11:31 <trackbot> ISSUE-4 Determine the proper XML namespaces document to refer to in the RDFa specification closed
15:12:00 <tinkster> SVG 1.2 Tiny uses XML 1.0 4th Ed; Namespaces 1.1 2nd Ed.
15:13:27 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-1: RDFa Vocabularies
15:15:17 <ShaneM> scribenick: ShaneM
15:13:07 <tinkster> I have a third proposal - similar to Manu's
15:13:32 <manu>
15:13:57 <manu>
15:14:24 <tinkster> q+
15:14:31 <tinkster> zakim, unmute me
15:14:31 <Zakim> tinkster should no longer be muted
15:14:35 <manu> ack tinkster
15:14:38 <trackbot> Sorry, Steven, I don't understand 'trackbot, comment issue-4 The references section in the XHTML+RDFa errata and the RDFa Core 1.1 document have been updated'. Please refer to for help
15:14:51 <tinkster>
15:15:17 <ShaneM> tinkster: similar, but generates fallback triples if the vocabulary document can't be dereferenced
15:15:31 <ShaneM> manu: are you asking that we consider this proposal as well?
15:16:10 <ShaneM> tinkster: It is really just refinements to Manu's proposal - it would be transparent to end users.  It allows the definition of a default prefix in a document.
15:16:36 <ivan> q+
15:16:46 <tinkster> zakim, mute me
15:16:46 <Zakim> tinkster should now be muted
15:16:47 <manu> ack ivan
15:17:41 <ShaneM> ivan: tinkster's proposal is really incremental to EITHER of the basic proposals.  
15:19:04 <manu> q+ to review the high-level differences between both proposals.
15:19:19 <manu> zakim, I am [IP
15:19:19 <Zakim> ok, manu, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
15:19:47 <ShaneM> ivan: describing the two basic proposals.  mark's proposal has multiple formats.  Not a fan of the implementation burden of supporting JSON and RDFa as basic formats.
15:19:51 <manu> ack manu
15:20:32 <ShaneM> manu: prefers aspects of Mark's proposal.
15:22:58 <ShaneM> Essential differences are that Mark's proposal permits declaration of prefixes and keywords.
15:24:10 <ShaneM> ... concept that there is a default vocabulary is a new concept, but one that lots of people seem to like.
15:25:07 <ShaneM> ... profiles proposal allows for recursive inclusion.  Vocabulary proposal does not.
15:25:35 <ShaneM> ... vocab proposal defines a new attribute @vocab.  profile proposal relies up @profile being in host languages
15:26:33 <ShaneM> ... @profile is not currently a part of HTML5.  If HTML5 adopts @profile everywhere, then we could rely upon that.  If it does not, we would need to use a different name.
15:28:38 <ShaneM> ... Other items that should be in: Default RDFa Vocabulary / Profile. Mark has indicate that the default should ONLY be used if a page does not specify a profile.  If there is a profile specification, then it should be used instead of any default profile.
15:28:38 <ivan> q+
15:28:48 <manu> ack ivan
15:28:54 <manu> ack [IP
15:28:54 <Zakim> [IPcaller], you wanted to review the high-level differences between both proposals.
15:30:01 <ShaneM> ivan: Would prefer to postpone the discussion of the default profile. If we have a mechanism for specifying a vocabulary, then we can think about how to deal with default profile.
15:30:41 <ShaneM> ... it would be trivial to add the definition of 'prefixes' to the vocab proposal.  
15:31:24 <ShaneM> ... it is much more interesting for me to have a default definition for 'foaf:' is more important than defining the individual keywords that make up FOAF.
15:33:28 <ShaneM> manu: yes, it is possible to extend the vocabulary proposal to support prefix declarations.
15:34:18 <ivan> q+
15:34:33 <ivan> q-
15:34:35 <ShaneM> ... has reservations about using xmlns: to declare prefix mappings.  
15:35:23 <manu> ack ivan
15:35:25 <Steven> I disagree with that interpretation
15:35:28 <ShaneM> manu: We should stop overloading xmlns: - declaring tokens with it is an abuse of xmlns.
15:36:03 <Steven> that bit I agree with
15:36:04 <ShaneM> ivan: agree that this is a hack.  Also, xmlns defines prefixes for the file that is being processed.  Having those declarations leak into another document is inconsistent.
15:36:55 <ShaneM> ... if I have a vocabulary document and I want to document the document itself, then I might want to use RDFa to do that documentation and bring in other vocabularies.  Those vocabularies should not leak into the document that is USING the vocabulary.
15:37:05 <Steven> ack me
15:37:09 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about how xmlns is used
15:37:57 <ShaneM> Steven: disagrees that an xmlns declaration introduces a namespace.  All xmlns does is declare a prefix mapping and then to scope elements and attributes later.
15:38:10 <manu> Here's what I have reservations about doing: xmlns:Person="http://..../#Person"
15:38:24 <tinkster> It's a neat hack, but it's still a hack.
15:38:25 <manu> I don't agree with doing that.
15:39:01 <ShaneM> Steven: Whatever we do needs to be easy for authors.  They shouldn't be required to understand mystical aspects of namespaces.
15:39:14 <ShaneM> No one seems to support overloading xmlns in this way.
15:39:37 <manu> ack ShaneM
15:39:37 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about how xmlns is used
15:40:17 <tinkster> +1
15:41:25 <ShaneM> manu: Just to clarify:  we don't want to overload xmlns to declare tokens and prefixes in vocabulary documents.  Additionally, we WANT to use RDFa to declare terms and prefix mappings in the vocabulary documents.
15:41:39 <ShaneM> ivan: Well, isn't that the next topic?  We were going to discuss JSON
15:41:55 <ShaneM> q+ to address the JSON issue
15:42:21 <manu> ack ShaneM
15:42:21 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to address the JSON issue
15:42:22 <ivan> q+
15:42:23 <ShaneM> manu: the one really positive thing that JSON does is it COULD allow us to not rely upon CORS support in browsers in order to make it work.
15:42:29 <tinkster> no json does not allow workaround for cors - jsonp does.
15:42:41 <manu> Toby is right.
15:43:24 <tinkster> jsonp is a dialect of javascript so theoretically introduces security issues
15:43:55 <ivan> q?
15:44:09 <manu> ack ivan
15:44:33 <ShaneM> ShaneM: no reason to preclude having a JSON version of the vocab come out via content negotiation.  Basic format should be RDFa.
15:44:46 <ShaneM> manu: There is a possibility of fragmentation then.  And that's bad.
15:44:55 <ShaneM> ShaneM: I know... And I don't really care.
15:45:47 <manu> zakim, unmute toby
15:45:47 <Zakim> sorry, manu, I do not know which phone connection belongs to toby
15:45:47 <ShaneM> ivan: my concern is implementations.  there is a cost associated with supporting multiple formats.  Also, what is the security concern?
15:45:50 <tinkster> sorry can't speak right now
15:46:15 <tinkster> can post to list later.
15:46:39 <manu> ok, thanks Toby.
15:47:48 <manu> q+ to discuss CORS.
15:47:53 <Benjamin>
15:48:00 <manu> ack [IPCa
15:48:00 <Zakim> [IPcaller], you wanted to discuss CORS.
15:48:24 <ShaneM> ShaneM: The issue is that if you are bringing in a javascript resource from OVER THERE and OVER THERE gets compromised, then badness could ensue
15:48:55 <tinkster> Got to go, but please give me an action to post a writeup of JS/JSON/JSONP/CORS to list.
15:48:58 <ivan> q+
15:49:07 <Zakim> -tinkster
15:49:22 <ShaneM> manu: There is also the cost of maintaining the JSONp file and keeping it in sync.  The alternative is that you enable CORS support.  Supporting CORS is potentially easier than maintaining multiple documents.
15:49:27 <manu> ack ivan
15:49:36 <Steven> trackbot, status
15:50:25 <ShaneM> ivan: My understanding is that the implementor can choose which format to provide.  
15:50:29 <manu> q+ to discuss RDFa /OR/ JSON
15:51:04 <manu> ack [IPc
15:51:04 <Zakim> [IPcaller], you wanted to discuss RDFa /OR/ JSON
15:51:05 <Steven> Action: Toby to post a writeup of JS/JSON/JSONP/CORS to list
15:51:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-14 - Post a writeup of JS/JSON/JSONP/CORS to list [on Toby Inkster - due 2010-03-11].
15:51:33 <ShaneM> ... I was opposed to that because it means an RDFa parser needs to understand multiple formats.  But if it enables the javascript implementation, then it might be okay to support JSON.
15:51:53 <ivan> q+
15:52:43 <ShaneM> manu: Feels that the server MUST support vocabularies in both formats.  If what we are trying to do is make it easy for implementors, then we want to have an RDFa mechanism all the way through.  The only reason is to have the JSON support is to help javascript implementations.  However, that problem can also be solved via CORS.  But CORS is not widely distributed yet.
15:52:58 <manu> ack ivan
15:54:36 <manu> q+ to discuss RDFa API
15:55:00 <ShaneM> ivan: Need to make things easy for authors.  Implementors can work a little.
15:55:01 <Steven> zakim, who is here?
15:55:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see Knud (muted), RobW, Ivan, Benjamin, [IPcaller], mgylling, ShaneM, Steven
15:55:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see RobW, mgylling, Knud, manu, ShaneM, Benjamin, Zakim, RRSAgent, Steven, ivan, tinkster, trackbot
15:55:15 <Steven> zakim, [IP is manu
15:55:15 <Zakim> +manu; got it
15:55:59 <ShaneM> manu: If RDFa API works out or CORS takes off, then we don't need to worry about marking things up in JSONp
15:56:30 <ivan> q+
15:56:43 <Steven> ack [IP
15:56:43 <Zakim> [IPcaller], you wanted to discuss RDFa API
15:56:51 <manu> ack ivan
15:57:02 <ShaneM> manu: we need to get general agreement from Mark and Ben about what we discussed today.
15:57:20 <ShaneM> ivan: Is it okay if we extend the vocab proposal so it includes prefix declarations too.
15:57:23 <ShaneM> manu: sure
15:57:33 <ShaneM> ivan: okay - will do that tomorrow and will put it in W3C space
15:57:56 <ivan> zakim, drop me
15:57:56 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
15:57:57 <Zakim> -Ivan
15:57:58 <Zakim> -mgylling
15:58:04 <Zakim> -Steven
15:58:08 <Zakim> -RobW
15:58:10 <Zakim> -ShaneM
15:58:20 <Zakim> -manu
15:58:22 <Zakim> -Knud
15:58:24 <Zakim> -Benjamin
15:58:28 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
15:58:30 <Zakim> Attendees were Knud, +0785583aaaa, RobW, Ivan, Benjamin, [IPcaller], mgylling, tinkster, ShaneM, Steven, manu
16:00:25 <manu> trackbot, help
16:00:25 <trackbot> See for help
16:00:41 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate ivan