Chatlog 2010-07-08

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

13:40:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:40:30 <RRSAgent> logging to
13:42:37 <manu> trackbot, prepare telecon
13:42:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:42:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
13:42:42 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 18 minutes
13:42:43 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
13:42:43 <trackbot> Date: 08 July 2010
13:43:29 <manu> Agenda:
13:43:32 <manu> Chair: Manu
13:44:14 <manu> Scribe: Steven
13:44:35 <Steven_> Scribenick: Steven_
13:52:28 <tinkster> tinkster has joined #rdfa
13:58:41 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
13:58:50 <Zakim> + +44.785.583.aaaa
13:58:54 <Steven_> zakim, dial steven-617
13:58:54 <Zakim> ok, Steven_; the call is being made
13:58:55 <Zakim> - +44.785.583.aaaa
13:58:55 <Zakim> + +44.785.583.aaaa
13:58:56 <Zakim> +Steven
13:59:06 <tinkster> Zakim, aaaa is me
13:59:06 <Zakim> +tinkster; got it
13:59:10 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:59:11 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
13:59:11 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
13:59:12 <Zakim> +Ivan
13:59:28 <manu> zakim, I am IPcaller (not that you care)
13:59:28 <Zakim> I don't understand 'I am IPcaller (not that you care)', manu
13:59:42 <Steven_> zakim, [IP is manu
13:59:42 <Zakim> +manu; got it
14:00:05 <Benjamin> Benjamin has joined #rdfa
14:00:09 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
14:00:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see tinkster, Steven, manu, Ivan
14:00:11 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
14:00:29 <Zakim> + +1.612.217.aabb
14:00:35 <ShaneM> zakim, aabb is ShaneM
14:00:35 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
14:01:43 <Zakim> + +49.631.205.75.aacc
14:01:55 <Benjamin> zakim, aacc is Benjamin
14:01:55 <Zakim> +Benjamin; got it
14:02:42 <ShaneM> zakim, who is here?
14:02:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see tinkster, Steven, manu, Ivan, ShaneM, Benjamin
14:02:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see ShaneM, Benjamin, tinkster, RRSAgent, trackbot, Zakim, manu, Steven_, ivan, markbirbeck
14:04:36 <Steven_> Topic: ISSUE-15: @version attribute in HTML5 (on Manu)
14:05:21 <Steven_> Manu: @version was taken out of HTML5
14:05:38 <Steven_> ... so HTML5+RDFa spec defines it
14:05:50 <Steven_> ... problem though, see email
14:05:52 <ivan> q+
14:06:02 <manu> Explanation of issues with @version:
14:06:12 <Zakim> +Mark_Birbeck
14:06:15 <manu> ack ivan
14:06:17 <Steven_> Manu: Toby has a good proposal
14:06:21 <tinkster> q+ to respond to Ivan (assuming he will talk about his message to the mailing list)
14:06:44 <Steven_> Ivan: I know that @version is in RDFa 1.0, was informational, had no effect on processor, not required
14:06:58 <Steven_> ... so its role is minimal
14:07:05 <Steven_> ... do we need to make it more serious?
14:07:17 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss @version history
14:07:42 <Steven_> Ivan: What is the intention?
14:07:58 <Steven_> ... to inform the world that this is RDFa?
14:08:06 <Steven_> ... what's the goal?
14:08:08 <manu> ack tinkster
14:08:08 <Zakim> tinkster, you wanted to respond to Ivan (assuming he will talk about his message to the mailing list)
14:08:36 <Steven_> Toby: Semantics of @version is to say which version of RDFa is used for authoring
14:08:41 <manu> ack shanem
14:08:41 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss @version history
14:08:45 <Steven_> ... and therefore for processing
14:09:35 <Steven_> Shane: I agree with Toby'the WG decided to elevate the visibility of @version, it has always been in XHTML, and each version of XHTML has a different version
14:09:54 <ivan> q+
14:09:54 <Steven_> ... we made it more visibility because DOCTYPES were disappearing
14:10:08 <tinkster> I was more saying that processors can process RDFa according to whatever version they like; but @version tells processors which version the author intended/"guarantees will work".
14:10:18 <Steven_> ... and we needed a way to say which version was being used
14:10:20 <markbirbeck> q+
14:10:38 <Steven_> ... we should have stuck with DOCTYPES, but we didn't
14:10:53 <manu> ack ivan
14:11:18 <Steven_> Ivan: Understood. If @version is dropped from HTML5, what alternative is there in HTML5?
14:11:23 <manu> q+ to describe HTML5's announcement mechanism
14:11:27 <Steven_> ... for announcing anything about the document
14:11:31 <tinkster> HTML5 intentionally has no versioning information.
14:11:55 <tinkster>
14:11:59 <Steven_> Ivan: we used the existing announcement mechanism, we should use whatever the host gives us
14:12:08 <Steven_> ... in SVG there is no version
14:12:17 <Steven_> ... what should SVG do?
14:12:30 <manu> ack markbirbekc
14:12:32 <manu> ack markbirbeck
14:13:05 <Steven_> MarkB: DOCTYPE wouldn't have been enough at the time, becauase we wanted to say "this document really does contain RDFa"
14:13:16 <ShaneM> hmm - interesting take
14:13:19 <Steven_> ... so why do we want an announcement mechanism?
14:13:39 <Steven_> ... there seems to be a general problem
14:13:50 <Steven_> ... maybe we've used @version in a way not intended
14:14:03 <Steven_> ... you wouldn't announce SVG at the top
14:14:07 <Steven_> q+
14:14:19 <tinkster> SVG does actually have @version on the root element. Valid values are '1.0', '1.1' and '1.2'. Also @baseProfile for flavours within each version.
14:14:39 <Steven_> MarkB: Why bother with announcing?
14:14:52 <Steven_> ... does it save anything?
14:14:53 <manu> ack manu
14:14:53 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to describe HTML5's announcement mechanism
14:15:24 <ivan> tinkster: true, but I do not think you would be allowed to add an RDFa value to the svg @version attribute
14:15:29 <Steven_> MarkB: HTML5 doesn't say that the doc contains SVG
14:15:37 <tinkster> I thought Ivan was referring to RDFa in SVG.
14:15:55 <ivan> tinkster: yes I was. But I do not think we could use that
14:16:05 <Steven_> Manu: If you don't have access to the head of a document, you're out of luck anyway
14:16:20 <tinkster> We can't use SVG's attribute; not without breaking the SVG schema.
14:16:24 <manu> ack Steven_
14:17:13 <ivan> q+
14:17:47 <markbirbeck> Steven_: My recollection is that TAG insisted we have a mechanism.
14:18:04 <manu> ack ivan
14:18:05 <markbirbeck> ...They felt that there should be some notion of 'what the author intended'.
14:18:09 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss author intent
14:18:22 <Steven_> Steven: Since you could extract triples from documents that weren't intended to have RDFa in them
14:18:36 <markbirbeck> ...Did they expect their mark-up to be processed by an RDFa processor? If not, then we shouldn't do it. :)
14:18:56 <Steven_> Ivan: True enough, but @version is not required for processors to work
14:19:11 <markbirbeck> q+
14:19:14 <manu> ack shanem
14:19:14 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss author intent
14:19:22 <Steven_> Shane: That's right
14:19:40 <Steven_> ... Steven you're right that the TAG were calling for this, and frankly I don't care
14:20:09 <Steven_> ... there's a different school of thought that says we can process a document jsut how we want, regardless of the author's intent
14:20:13 <tinkster> One can extract triples from VCARD or Atom if you like; doesn't mean that the author intended for it to happen.
14:20:17 <Steven_> s/jsut/just/
14:20:26 <manu> ack markbirbeck
14:20:29 <Steven_> Shane: So I agree, just remove it
14:21:05 <Steven_> MarkB: Indeed it was the TAG, we were all thinking at the time, this was a sop, but we made it optional to allow the processing of documents without it.
14:21:24 <Steven_> ... so do we just move on now?
14:21:45 <Steven_> ... We didn't deprecate version, so it's not our fault
14:21:53 <manu> q+ to discuss deprecation
14:22:00 <ShaneM> I think @version is a very important attribute.  just not for this purpose
14:22:02 <tinkster> not our fault, guv.
14:22:03 <Steven_> ... We don't want it back, it's deprecated, so that's that
14:22:06 <manu> ack manu
14:22:06 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss deprecation
14:22:31 <Steven_> Manu: We'll get a community of people asking us how to do backwards compatibility
14:22:38 <ivan> q+
14:23:14 <tinkster> It's possible to do version detection even if we drop it: RDFa 1.0 has @version="XHTML+RDFa 1.0" and RDFa 1.1 does not.
14:23:18 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss supporting 1.0 and 1.1.
14:23:21 <Steven_> ... so if we deprecate, what do we say happens?
14:23:49 <manu> ack ivan
14:24:01 <Steven_> ... What does a processor do? Does this make RDFa 1.0 docs RDFa 1.1?
14:24:16 <Steven_> Ivan: @version had no effect on the processor in RDFa 1.0
14:24:35 <manu> q+ to discuss the effect of @version
14:24:36 <Steven_> ... so we just don't use it anymore
14:24:59 <Steven_> ... I don't see a problem
14:25:04 <manu> ack shanem
14:25:04 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss supporting 1.0 and 1.1.
14:25:07 <Steven_> Shane: I disagree
14:25:14 <Steven_> ... @version does have an effect
14:25:33 <Steven_> ... the effect is only apparent in the presence of other RDFa dialects
14:26:16 <ivan> q+
14:26:20 <Steven_> Shane: If version is present, and says 1.0, then the processor has to process it as 1.0
14:26:42 <manu> ack manu
14:26:42 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss the effect of @version
14:27:02 <ShaneM> my processor has branches too
14:27:06 <Steven_> Manu: I agree, I change processing in my processor based on @version
14:27:27 <manu> ack ivan
14:27:35 <Steven_> ... and bail on a version that I don't know how to process
14:27:37 <ShaneM> But I did change my processor so the default is 1.1
14:27:54 <Steven_> Ivan: I don't do that; and as far as I know any RDFa 1.0 is valid 1.1
14:28:01 <ShaneM> while a 1.0 file is valid 1.1, ytou will get different triples because of XMLLiteral
14:28:03 <manu> q+ to discuss backwards compatibility
14:28:09 <Steven_> ... we can do more in 1.1, but we cannot do less.
14:28:32 <Steven_> ... well, OK I admit XML literal is different, but it is not used much
14:28:49 <Steven_> ... so I don't see a reason to require a switch
14:28:56 <ShaneM> I dont think we said that
14:29:23 <Steven_> Manu: there are other differences too, upper and lower case, [others]
14:29:38 <markbirbeck> q+
14:29:49 <ShaneM> (my processor did it because there was an errata that said we should expect that to happen)
14:29:50 <tinkster> we said that rel=License is lowercased in the 1.0 errata
14:30:08 <Steven_> ... I'm not trying to make it seem like I think there should be  a branching switch, but if we do this we will change the semantics of RDFa 1.0 docs
14:30:21 <manu> ack manu
14:30:21 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss backwards compatibility
14:30:24 <manu> ack markbirbeck
14:30:58 <Steven_> MarkB: You may get less triples with 1.0
14:31:31 <manu> q+ to discuss best effort
14:31:36 <Steven_> ... I do think it is legitimate to do a best effort rather than bailing
14:32:27 <ShaneM> actually - @profile in a 1.0 parser  might get different triples than a 1.1 document in which there was an @profile but it was unresolvable, for example.
14:32:29 <manu> ack manu
14:32:29 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss best effort
14:33:01 <Steven_> Manu: I do agree that processors should do a best effort, and we seem to be concluding that @version should have no effect
14:33:25 <Steven_> ... agree?
14:33:28 <Steven_> Ivan: Yes
14:33:30 <ShaneM> +q
14:33:33 <ShaneM> ack ShaneM
14:33:35 <ShaneM> +1
14:33:53 <Steven_> Ivan: Now that core is separate from the rest, @version doesn't exist in core anymore
14:34:01 <ShaneM> note that there still must be an @version in XHTML+RDFa 1.1... M12N requries it.  
14:34:11 <Steven_> Manu: Then we deprecate @version? Or remove it?
14:34:15 <ivan> q+
14:34:24 <tinkster> If RDFa 2.0 needs to be backwards compatible, they can introduce profile="urn:w3c:rdfa:2.0" on the root element. (This is unresolvable so will prevent triples being generated by 1.1 parsers.)
14:34:26 <Steven_> ... Should a processor ignore it?
14:34:33 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss removal
14:34:36 <manu> ack ivan
14:35:20 <Steven_> Ivan: Depends. Core doesn't mention @version and shouldn't. In places where it is mentioned it should be deprecated, and for HTML5 it shouldn't be there at all.
14:35:22 <Steven_> q+
14:35:43 <ivan> ack ShaneM 
14:35:43 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss removal
14:36:14 <Steven_> Shane: I agree with Ivan, but in XHTML+RDFa 1.1 we can't mark the attribute as deprecated, but taken out of conformance requirements
14:36:31 <manu> ack shanem
14:36:33 <manu> ack steven_
14:38:07 <Steven_> Steven: The fact that it's not in HTML5 doesn't mean it has to be removed. HTML5 leave attributes it doesn't know in the DOM
14:38:31 <Steven_> Manu: [scribe missed]
14:38:42 <ShaneM> "For the avoidance of doubt, an RDFa Processor MUST NOT use the value of @version to effect its processing."
14:39:21 <Steven_> Manu: Proposal: Deprecate @version in XHTML+RDFa 1.1
14:39:27 <manu> PROPOSAL: Deprecate the use of the value of @version in XHTML+RDFa 1.1. State that @version, as it pertains to RDFa, MUST be ignored by all RDFa Processors.
14:39:57 <Steven_> Steven: MUST or SHOULD?
14:40:16 <tinkster> q+
14:40:27 <Steven_> Manu: MUST I think
14:40:35 <manu> ack tinkster
14:40:36 <ShaneM> I agree with MUST
14:40:59 <Steven_> Toby: The problem with that is that we didn't say it in RDFa 1.0
14:41:27 <Steven_> ... so a processor could still honour it
14:43:27 <Steven_> Manu: All you have to do is be conformant with 1.0
14:43:41 <Steven_> ... Why would they dispatch a 1.0 processor on it?
14:44:16 <Steven_> Toby: You can't forbid processors looking at version because it was in 1.0
14:44:40 <Steven_> Manu: Does this affect the proposal?
14:44:50 <Steven_> Steven: I'm OK with SHOULD
14:44:59 <manu> PROPOSAL: Deprecate the use of the value of @version in XHTML+RDFa 1.1. State that @version, as it pertains to RDFa, be ignored by all RDFa Processors.
14:45:13 <tinkster> +1
14:45:15 <manu> +1
14:45:18 <Steven_> Manu: Let's discuss MUST vs SHOULD on the mailing list
14:45:18 <ivan> +1
14:45:18 <Benjamin> +1
14:45:21 <Steven_> +1
14:45:41 <markbirbeck> +1
14:45:44 <ShaneM> +1
14:45:45 <manu> RESOLVED: Deprecate the use of the value of @version in XHTML+RDFa 1.1. State that @version, as it pertains to RDFa, be ignored by all RDFa Processors.
14:46:12 <Steven_> Manu: There's no @version in core right?
14:46:14 <Steven_> Shane: No
14:46:47 <Steven_> Manu: And then in HTML5 version, we can remove the language
14:46:58 <ShaneM> "For the avoidance of doubt, an RDFa Processor MUST NOT use the value of @version to affect its processing."
14:47:21 <manu> PROPOSAL: Remove mention of @version in HTML+RDFa 1.1 spec. State that @version, as it pertains to RDFa, be ignored by all RDFa Processors.
14:47:48 <tinkster> +1
14:47:51 <Steven_> +1
14:47:53 <manu> +1
14:47:54 <Benjamin> +1
14:48:00 <markbirbeck> +1
14:48:11 <Steven_> Manu: Again decide on MUST vs SHOULD on mailing list
14:48:24 <ShaneM> +1
14:48:28 <ivan> zakim, mute me
14:48:28 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
14:48:50 <ivan> +1
14:49:01 <manu> RESOLVED: Remove mention of @version in HTML+RDFa 1.1 spec. State that @version, as it pertains to RDFa, be ignored by all RDFa Processors.
14:49:31 <Steven_> Topic: ISSUE-24: Case-sensitive terms in HTML5 (on Shane)
14:49:37 <Steven_> Manu: Is this already resolved?
14:49:51 <markbirbeck> This reminds me of the famous Oscar Wilde quote, where he says he'd had a busy day; he'd put a comma in, and then taken it out again.
14:50:12 <Steven_> Shane: We said many things, I don't think we resolved it
14:50:47 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
14:50:47 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
14:51:18 <ivan> q+
14:51:19 <Steven_> Manu: So should we force all values in rel and rev to lower case?
14:51:21 <Steven_> q+
14:51:23 <manu> ack ivan
14:51:42 <tinkster> *All* values? what about foaf:primaryTopic?
14:51:49 <tinkster> what about rdfs:seeAlso?
14:51:55 <Steven_> Ivan: Do you mean all rev and rel terms in the default, or including my own
14:51:58 <tinkster> what about foaf:workplaceHomepage
14:52:00 <Steven_> Manu: all
14:52:03 <tinkster> what about dc:conformsTo?
14:52:05 <ShaneM> TERM == NCNAME
14:52:14 <Steven_> ... but TERMs, things without colons
14:52:20 <Steven_> q-
14:52:29 <ShaneM> @vocab='dc URL' rel=''conformsTo" 
14:52:36 <tinkster> OK, for terms it's doable.
14:52:46 <Steven_> Ivan: This would stop me having TERMS that matched the foaf predicates
14:52:55 <tinkster> The term would be case-insensitive; the expansion would be case-preserving.
14:53:21 <Steven_> Shane: You couldn't do what I just typed; that would be bad
14:53:44 <Steven_> Ivan: Correct
14:53:51 <Steven_> ... so we cannot do this
14:54:14 <Steven_> Manu: Right, so we do a case insensitive match on terms in HTML vocab
14:54:34 <Steven_> Ivan: Unless they are redefined
14:54:45 <Steven_> ... I could redefine license
14:55:01 <Steven_> Manu: Hmmm
14:55:29 <Steven_> Ivan: So we may be forced to say which set of terms are case insensitive or not
14:55:35 <ShaneM> TERMs in the xhv: vocab could be required to be case insensitive
14:55:39 <Steven_> Manu: Hmmm
14:55:58 <tinkster> (My processor is able to keep track of case-sensitive and  case-insensitive terms and prefixes simultaneously.)
14:56:33 <Steven_> Shane: I agree that you're right that you can redefine, but the processor would know that
14:56:48 <Steven_> ... but the things in xhv: vocab can be defined to be case insensitive
14:57:17 <Steven_> ... in whatever context it is brought in
14:57:25 <tinkster> This seems different from 1.0.
14:57:27 <Steven_> ... and mapped to lowercase
14:57:50 <Steven_> ... except, wait, the ARIA roles are NOT case insensitive. Oh crap!
14:57:53 <tinkster> rel="License" is mapped to lowercase in 1.0, but rel=":License" is not IIRC.
14:58:17 <tinkster> They preserve case.
14:58:24 <Steven_> Manu: I expect that the HTML5 processor proeserves case
14:58:42 <Steven_> Manu: If they do we may need to rethink.
14:58:49 <Steven_> Topic: AOB
14:59:09 <Steven_> Shane: Modularization 1.1 PER should be going to Rec soon, affects us only slightly
14:59:27 <Steven_> ... XHTML 1.1 will then follow, adding @lang
14:59:42 <Steven_> ... which will affect us eventually
14:59:56 <Steven_> ... we don't have to do anything, but we have a dependency
15:00:05 <tinkster> bye all!
15:00:09 <Steven_> Manu: Thanks! Call next week.
15:00:10 <ivan> zakim, bye 
15:00:13 <Zakim> -Mark_Birbeck
15:00:15 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfa
15:00:16 <ivan> zakim, drop me
15:00:17 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were +44.785.583.aaaa, Steven, tinkster, [IPcaller], Ivan, manu, +1.612.217.aabb, ShaneM, +49.631.205.75.aacc, Benjamin, Mark_Birbeck
15:00:20 <Steven_> [ADJOURN]