Chatlog 2011-01-06

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

14:57:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:57:40 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:57:42 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:57:42 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:57:44 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
14:57:45 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
14:57:45 <trackbot> Date: 06 January 2011
14:57:45 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:58:10 <manu> Chair: Manu
14:58:35 <manu> Present: Ivan, Benjamin, Steven, Shane, Toby, Manu
14:59:56 <manu> Regrets: Nathan, MarkB
15:00:12 <Benjamin> Benjamin has joined #rdfa
15:00:47 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
15:00:54 <Zakim> + +1.540.961.aaaa
15:00:59 <manu> zakim, I am aaaa
15:00:59 <Zakim> +manu; got it
15:01:14 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
15:01:14 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:01:18 <Zakim> +Steven
15:01:23 <manu> Agenda:
15:01:31 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:01:31 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:01:34 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:01:51 <Zakim> + +
15:02:09 <Benjamin> zakim, I am aabb
15:02:21 <Zakim> +Benjamin; got it
15:03:12 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:03:23 <Benjamin> scribenick: Benjamin
15:03:33 <Zakim> +ShaneM
15:04:12 <Benjamin> manu: let's start. Any updates, changes to agenda?
15:04:12 <Benjamin> No addition updates requested to be added to the agenda
15:04:21 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
15:04:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see manu, Steven, Ivan, Benjamin, ShaneM
15:04:35 <manu> Topic: Work Plan for 1st Quarter of 2011
15:04:40 <manu> Here's the plan of action for the next 3 months:
15:04:40 <manu>
15:05:08 <Benjamin> manu: it covers January, February and March
15:06:25 <Benjamin> ... Shane graciously volunteered to handle the last call comments and take us to Candidate Rec
15:06:57 <Benjamin> ... how do we want to handle the Last Call comments?
15:07:39 <Benjamin> ivan: Shane should not be overly burdened with technical issues.
15:07:39 <Benjamin> Steven: We usually triage into 3 separate categories: editorial issues, items that need further technical discussion, and things that are not technically possible or we can't handle in the time alloted to the WG.
15:08:42 <Benjamin> manu1: I created issues for almost all incoming comments, minus Jeni's comments in the past two days.
15:08:48 <manu>
15:09:53 <Benjamin> ShaneM: Some comments are more related to XHTML or HTML. I'll redirect XHTML comments to that spec.
15:10:31 <Benjamin> manu1: Next step, run in parallel, is to get the RDFa API and RDF API document into better shape.
15:15:01 <Benjamin> Manu1: In March we hope to have first implementations of RDFa 1.1 Processors, hopefully at least two, which seems very realistic given Ivan and Gregg's parsers already pretty much are RDFa 1.1 processors.
15:17:25 <Benjamin> ... In March try to move to Proposed Recommendations for current RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa Working Drafts
15:18:01 <Benjamin> ivan: let's talk about the Primer
15:18:01 <Benjamin> manu: We're bringing a new guy, Tom Adamich, on to work on the Primer. That's going to be his primary job in the WG, so we hope to see a new Working Draft in a month or two.
15:18:31 <Benjamin> ivan: what about the chartered optional cookbook?
15:19:14 <Benjamin> ... the cookbook should include RDFa API content. Therefore the deadline should be later.
15:19:46 <tinkster> I started gathering some potential examples for the cookbook on the WG wiki.
15:19:47 <Benjamin> ivan: maybe we could collect code snippets from our discussion on a wiki page
15:20:35 <Benjamin> ... Toby began to play with an ATOM host laguage for RDFa
15:20:49 <Benjamin> ... we should publish that as Note
15:20:49 <Benjamin> manu: As always, I'm concerned about having enough people to work on the Cookbook, we haven't had enough so far, but Toby has started the work on the wiki. Perhaps it can stay there for the time being?
15:20:49 <tinkster>
15:21:36 <tinkster>
15:21:40 <Benjamin> manu1: let's discuss it further on the mailing list
15:22:09 <manu> Topic: Thoughts on RDF API and RDFa API Documents
15:22:17 <manu> Here are the latest RDF API and RDFa API documents:
15:22:17 <manu>
15:22:24 <manu>
15:22:37 <Benjamin> manu1: Mark, Nathan and I are fairly happy with the new direction. Is everyone else more or less OK with the current direction of these documents?
15:23:52 <Benjamin> benjamin: i am ok, want to look deeper into the RDF API 
15:24:04 <Benjamin> Ivan: Yes
15:24:04 <Benjamin> Steven: OK
15:24:04 <Benjamin> Shane: I'm not concerned with the documents.
15:24:11 <manu> Topic: XHTML Profile document changes/management
15:24:21 <manu> manu: Toby has put together a new XHTML Profile document that includes cross-references to other vocabularies.
15:24:21 <manu>
15:24:40 <Benjamin> manu1: Here is the actual vocabulary:
15:24:42 <manu>
15:24:54 <Zakim> + +44.785.583.aacc
15:25:00 <tinkster> Zakim, aacc is me
15:25:00 <Zakim> +tinkster; got it
15:25:31 <Benjamin> manu: could you give an overview Toby?
15:26:05 <ivan> q+
15:26:07 <Benjamin> tinkster: I took the basic XHTML vocabulary and added cross-references to other vocabluaries like Dublin Core, Creative Commons, etc.
15:26:39 <Benjamin> manu: This is a good thing to do.
15:26:55 <Benjamin> manu: Any concerns about this from the group?
15:26:56 <manu> ack ivan
15:27:07 <Benjamin> ivan: I have some comments.
15:27:15 <tinkster> zakim, mute me
15:27:15 <Zakim> tinkster should now be muted
15:27:58 <manu> q+ to discuss core vs. xhtml profiles
15:28:10 <Benjamin> ... Many changes relate to RDFa Core rather than XHTML+RDFa.
15:29:01 <Benjamin> ... We have to have a well documented process about how a prefix gets into the profile
15:30:00 <manu> ack manu
15:30:00 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss core vs. xhtml profiles
15:30:05 <Benjamin> ... It's tricky to add or not add vocabularies like Dublin Core, Foaf , SIOC or Google's.
15:30:42 <Benjamin> manu: RDFa core is supposed to be an abstract document, with Host Language specific documents defined outside of it - for example, XHTML+RDFa, HTML+RDFa, Atom+RDFa, ODF+RDFa, etc.
15:31:14 <Benjamin> ivan: I disagree
15:32:49 <Benjamin> ShaneM: That's okay that you disagree, but the group decided the design for RDFa Core should be abstract and shouldn't talk about Host Language conformance.
15:34:47 <Benjamin> ivan: Yes, but RDFa Core already works with any XML language... it's already in there, you can take all conforming RDFa 1.1 processors, point them at an XML document and get triples out of it.
15:35:49 <Benjamin> ivan: I should be able to use the RDF distiller for any RDFa data contained in an XML document.
15:36:16 <Benjamin> manu: Should we add an XML Document Conformance section into the RDFa Core document?
15:36:52 <Benjamin> ShaneM: We could add a section about XML conformance.
15:37:34 <Benjamin> ... Ivan your use case is a real use case. I have to think about this issue. How about testing? Do we have a core test suite?
15:37:34 <Benjamin> manu: No, we don't have an XML-specific test-suite.
15:41:29 <Benjamin> ivan: For a given set of vocabularies (SIOC, FOAF, ...), it would be nice to have them available in all XML documents.
15:41:38 <manu> q?
15:42:07 <Benjamin> ivan: An XHTML document should have two profiles, the default profile and its own profile.
15:42:08 <tinkster> chances are you'd hardcode both.
15:42:34 <Benjamin> ShaneM: We should not have two profiles that are required to be loaded, you have to go out to the network to get them in the worst case and there is no reason we need to make profiles depend on other profiles. Just use one profile.
15:44:12 <ShaneM> define an XML+RDFa host language
15:45:00 <Benjamin> ivan: How does a processor identify the host language and know which language profile to use?
15:45:02 <tinkster> I use media type.
15:45:52 <manu> q+ to discuss checking the vocabulary profile
15:45:55 <manu> ack manu
15:45:55 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss checking the vocabulary profile
15:45:55 <Zakim> manu: We can't depend on media type - you can't make the distinction on which profile to load based strictly on that. We may need to depend on the value of xmlns on the root element, or <svg> or something like that - we need to sniff the document, in other words.
15:47:37 <manu> q+ to discuss selecting the default profile
15:48:08 <ShaneM> XHTML+RDFa says: XHTML+RDFa documents should be labeled with the Internet Media Type "application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236].  For further information on using media types with XHTML Family markup languages, see the informative note [XHTML-MEDIA-TYPES]. 
15:48:25 <Benjamin> manu: The HTML WG said that analysing the mimetpye is not the right way to identify the host language
15:50:34 <Benjamin> ivan: not all document formats have a doc type
15:50:49 <tinkster> HTML5 served as text/html can have xmlns=""
15:51:47 <manu> ack manu
15:51:47 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss selecting the default profile
15:52:13 <Benjamin> manu: although you cannot count on it, as shown by Toby's example we should use the namespace to decide which profile to use
15:53:37 <ShaneM> I would prefer embedding rules for XML+RDFa in RDFa Core rather than a separate spec
15:54:09 <Benjamin> ... I don't know if we have a concensus about implementing the profile lookup for RDFa processors
15:54:25 <ShaneM> RDFa Core needs to have rules for discovery defined in section 4.1
15:55:05 <Benjamin> ivan: We could add an XML profile section in the RDFA Core spec
15:55:51 <Benjamin> manu: another XML+RDFa spec is not much more work
15:56:23 <Benjamin> ShaneM: We have to recharter when publishing another specification
15:56:42 <Benjamin> ... I would add it into the conformance section
16:00:04 <ShaneM> We need to add these as specific last call issues so we can address them
16:01:18 <tinkster> There is a difference in terms of constructing the DOM from the byte stream.
16:01:48 <manu> q+ to end the meeting
16:04:10 <Benjamin> ShaneM: A conformance should use information form the higher level protocol to determine the document format
16:04:15 <Benjamin> manu: Ok, so we have the following Last Call issues: 1) Determine if we want to add an XML+RDFa document conformance section to the RDFa Core specification, 2) Determine whether or not we want to have separate profile documents for RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa, 3) Determine the process for managing the profile documents, 4) Specify an algorithm for determining which profile document to use and publish it somewhere.
16:06:29 <Zakim> -ShaneM
16:06:30 <ivan> zakim, drop me
16:06:30 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
16:06:31 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:06:31 <Zakim> -tinkster
16:06:33 <Zakim> -manu
16:06:33 <Zakim> -Steven
16:06:35 <Benjamin> ... is it OK that I fix purely editorial issues as I go through the comments?
16:06:49 <Benjamin> The group agreed that this would be fine.
16:06:54 <Zakim> -Benjamin
16:06:56 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
16:06:58 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.540.961.aaaa, manu, Steven, Ivan, +, Benjamin, ShaneM, +44.785.583.aacc, tinkster