Chatlog 2011-02-10

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

14:53:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:53:26 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:53:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:53:28 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:53:30 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
14:53:30 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
14:53:31 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
14:53:31 <trackbot> Date: 10 February 2011
14:54:14 <manu> Agenda:
14:54:18 <manu> Chair: Manu
14:54:39 <manu> Present: Ivan, Nathan, Steven, Manu, Shane
14:59:46 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:00:22 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:00:22 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:00:24 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
15:00:25 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:00:30 <Zakim> +??P18
15:00:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:00:48 <ShaneM> zakim, ??p18 is ShaneM
15:00:49 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
15:01:26 <Zakim> +??P27
15:01:28 <Knud> Knud has joined #rdfa
15:01:32 <Zakim> +??P24
15:01:36 <manu> zakim, I am ??P24
15:01:36 <Zakim> +manu; got it
15:01:46 <webr3> Zakim, I am ??P24
15:01:48 <Zakim> sorry, webr3, I do not see a party named '??P24'
15:01:49 <webr3> Zakim, I am ??P27
15:01:50 <Zakim> +webr3; got it
15:01:58 <webr3> zakim, mute me
15:02:02 <Zakim> webr3 should now be muted
15:02:20 <webr3> zakim, unmute me
15:02:20 <Zakim> webr3 should no longer be muted
15:02:51 <Zakim> + +3539149aaaa
15:03:03 <Knud> zakim, I am aaaa
15:03:03 <Zakim> +Knud; got it
15:03:45 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
15:03:45 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:03:46 <Zakim> +Steven
15:04:28 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
15:04:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ivan, ShaneM, [IPcaller], webr3, manu, Knud, Steven
15:04:39 <webr3> (ipcaller isn't there, that's me)
15:04:53 <manu> zakim, [IPcaller] is webr3
15:04:53 <Zakim> +webr3; got it
15:05:17 <webr3> I /was/ ipcaller, i hung up, ipcaller name stayed..
15:05:56 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-73 and ISSUE-78: RDFa Default Profile
15:05:57 <webr3> Topic: ISSUE-73 and ISSUE-78: RDFa Default Profile 
15:06:05 <webr3>
15:06:11 <webr3>
15:06:14 <manu> Proposal:
15:07:28 <webr3> ivan: choice for URIs for profiles is important, dated or not
15:07:43 <webr3> ivan: I'll discuss with people in W3C about this
15:07:51 <manu> ACTION: Manu to contact SemWeb Coordination Group to discuss default RDFa Profile URLs
15:07:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Contact SemWeb Coordination Group to discuss default RDFa Profile URLs [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-02-17].
15:07:55 <Steven> agenda+HCG
15:08:25 <webr3> ... technical question: I read your mail as if we have a profile valid for RDFa Core, and a different one for HTML+RDFa etc, is that correct?
15:08:54 <webr3> manu: I don't think we can have just one profile, for instance HTML will have custom terms
15:09:17 <webr3> ivan: that creates some issues.. it means that any host language has the right to define a default profile
15:09:30 <webr3> ... are there any restrictions on host languages?
15:10:10 <webr3> ... or perhaps we say we have to default profiles, a core one for everyone, and some host languages can add a host specific one..
15:11:20 <webr3> ... not only W3C can control host languages, other standardization bodies could do other RDFa host languages, sem web activity lead can't constrain what they do
15:11:51 <webr3> manu: host languages could override default profile..
15:12:08 <webr3> ivan: yes they could do that anyway by redeclaring all terms in default core profile
15:12:41 <webr3> ivan: I am leaning that we have two, core profile for all RDF, and a language specific one
15:12:46 <webr3> s/RDF/RDFa
15:13:10 <manu> Nathan: Core profile for all of RDF? Or core profile for all of RDFa?
15:14:06 <webr3> ivan: we can't define for RDF, we are RDFa working group, RDF WG will need to decide that
15:14:20 <manu> Manu: Do we expect default profiles for RDF/XML or Turtle?
15:14:34 <webr3> ivan: it may happen, it does not seem very likely for rdf/xml and turtle at least
15:15:04 <manu> The profile for RDFa -
15:15:15 <manu> The profile for (X)HTML+RDFa -
15:15:25 <webr3> Manu: we would be defining two profiles, RDFa default, profile for (X)HTML+RDFa
15:16:46 <webr3> Ivan: Next Point, still related, we had a standing issue, if we do that, how do I know that I am managing XHTML+RDFa? (to get profile)
15:17:02 <webr3> Manu: I was thinking we could trigger off (some element, <html> etc)
15:17:37 <webr3> Ivan: first question is, is this something we need in the document?
15:18:08 <ShaneM>  q+ to discuss announcement
15:18:10 <webr3> Manu: yes..
15:18:16 <manu> ack shanem
15:18:16 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss announcement
15:18:27 <webr3> Ivan: i don't like this sniffing to much..
15:18:56 <webr3> Shane: I thought we debated and agreed 3/4 weeks ago that the only thing we'd put in the document was that we detect on media type
15:20:07 <webr3> Manu: anybody disagree with triggering of media type to get the correct profile?
15:20:48 <Steven> q+
15:20:58 <manu> Manu: So we trigger off of "application/xhtml+xml" or "text/html" or "application/xml" (or whatever the proper mime-types are)
15:21:05 <manu> ack steven
15:21:17 <webr3> general agreement heard (nobody disagrees)
15:21:59 <webr3> Ivan: I am uneasy with the text: "Prefixes and terms MAY be /updated/ if the new meaning of the term or prefix is semantically backwards compatible with the previous term or prefix."
15:22:36 <webr3> Manu: example for this is dublin core, dc11 vs dcterms - dc tried to make sure terms were "supported" in new vocab
15:22:51 <webr3> .. you could change vocab uri and have same meaning
15:23:09 <webr3> ivan: no that's wrong, the two are very different, from rdf point of view
15:23:53 <webr3> manu: i said semantically because the meaning hasn't changed domain + range setting still means property means "title"
15:24:06 <webr3> manu: how are they not the same?
15:24:29 <webr3> ivan: because RDF and other tooling sees things differently, takign in to account these new statements
15:24:42 <webr3> ivan: as a rule we should say, prefixes and terms should nto be changed
15:25:07 <Steven> Why commit ourselves one way or the other?
15:25:33 <webr3> shane: I don't know if I agree w/ ivan, let's consider og: (opengraph for a while...) [considers]
15:25:35 <manu> Only because we're trying to give guidance to vocabulary authors, Steven.
15:26:08 <webr3> ... og may change data at their uri, updating it - if that's correct why isn't the other?
15:26:30 <webr3> ivan: that's correct, this is a problem at sem web level and RDFa should not even attempt to solve
15:26:32 <manu> Steven, I don't think we're trying to commit ourselves - just give guidance? (but we may be accidentally committing ourselves)
15:27:12 <webr3> ... what manu proposes is that the triples will be different (differen uris)
15:27:27 <webr3> q+ to agre w/ ivan
15:28:00 <manu> ack webr3
15:28:00 <Zakim> webr3, you wanted to agre w/ ivan
15:28:30 <manu> q+ to discuss dating
15:28:40 <manu> q-
15:28:56 <webr3> nathan: also people hard code against URIs, we can't have them changing
15:28:59 <ivan> 6. Vocabulary maintainers SHOULD include an 'Expires' header in the HTTP response when a profile is dereferenced via HTTP. RDFa processors MAY use this header to implement local caching of the profiles.
15:29:36 <manu> Nathan: We should also probably put "Last-Modified", etc.
15:30:12 <manu> Nathan: "E-tag" if possible, "Cache-Control"...
15:30:37 <manu> Ivan: Concerned that that's going to be difficult to implement - too complicated.
15:30:47 <manu> Nathan: The server should generate everything correctly.
15:31:08 <webr3> Manu: probably want to write or point to some good guidance on caching
15:31:40 <webr3> Ivan: yes everything is set automatically, but Expires needs set specifically normally
15:31:54 <webr3> Ivan: last thing is dated vs non dated uris for profiles
15:32:28 <manu> q+ to discuss URI dating
15:32:32 <ShaneM> q+ to disagree with ivan's URI propsoal
15:32:39 <webr3> ... I want to suggest we have non dated URI and provide dated too so people can reference explicitly
15:33:03 <manu> ack manu
15:33:03 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss URI dating
15:33:35 <webr3> Manu: I'm fine with versioned URI, issue i have with unversioned is that we could never remove prefixes or terms from it
15:34:01 <manu> Nathan: We also have to keep /terms/ in mind.
15:34:13 <manu> ack shanem
15:34:15 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to disagree with ivan's URI propsoal
15:34:44 <webr3> Shane: I agree w/ you manu - we debated this the other day, it was a light discussion
15:35:14 <webr3> ... if we have a /tr/ space URI then it means we can never remove a prefix
15:35:33 <webr3> ivan: but that's what caching is for
15:35:42 <manu> What happens when somebody does this in 2011: profile=""
15:35:47 <webr3> shane: but as soon as I update to the latest profile, every document stops working
15:36:24 <manu>
15:36:37 <webr3> ivan: but the proposal of manu is to say that we will have a new dated profile where it's lost anyway
15:38:13 <webr3> (scribe misses what manu says, he seems to be going against the idea of unversioned uris)
15:38:59 <webr3> ivan: we removed any way to tell what version of RDFa is being used
15:39:00 <manu> Manu: I think that we need to either have a versioned or dated URI
15:39:30 <webr3> ivan: maybe we need to have version in there again (?)
15:40:01 <webr3> manu: we tell people not to use profiles if they want interop, if they do want to use a profile they should mention which profile specifically
15:40:31 <webr3> ... and our fallback is, if they haven't done any of it, we'll use the latest default profile to try and get some triples out
15:40:59 <webr3> ... so we have levels of protection
15:41:06 <webr3> ivan: okay, i see what you mean...
15:41:39 <webr3> ivan: I think it's fine then, let's just not use "2011" in the uri
15:41:55 <manu> What about and ?
15:41:57 <webr3> manu: k, mmm, k
15:42:03 <manu> What about and ?
15:42:11 <manu> What about and ?
15:42:16 <webr3> nathan: remembers Ivan is goign to speak to w3c for guidance on this
15:43:03 <webr3> manu: any other concerns?
15:43:55 <manu> Nathan: I think it's about as good and close as we can get - I don't like default profiles, but I don't think others agree with that viewpoint, so this is as good as we get.
15:44:24 <ivan> ISSUE-73?
15:44:24 <trackbot> ISSUE-73 -- The RDFa WG needs to determine how each RDFa Profile document is managed -- open
15:44:24 <trackbot>
15:44:36 <webr3> manu: ivan you had 73? can you type up a response LC one?
15:45:00 <webr3> ivan: it was raised by manu sporney, do we need to reply to him?
15:45:27 <ivan> issue-78?
15:45:27 <trackbot> ISSUE-78 -- Should we have default prefixes and terms for host languages -- open
15:45:27 <trackbot>
15:46:58 <webr3> [general conversation about who LC replies to 78]
15:47:18 <manu> ACTION: Manu to write up RDFa Profile Management on RDFa Wiki
15:47:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-60 - Write up RDFa Profile Management on RDFa Wiki [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-02-17].
15:47:30 <webr3> manu: I'll put a draft response on wiki, Ivan will clean up and respond properly
15:48:03 <webr3> manu: I'll do the response to 73
15:48:06 <manu> ACTION: Manu to respond to ISSUE-73
15:48:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-61 - Respond to ISSUE-73 [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-02-17].
15:48:30 <webr3> Ivan: next step will be at some point, what will be the initial content in these profiles?
15:48:57 <webr3> manu: later, lets do it later please
15:49:29 <webr3> shane: it's a last call issue to define these as part of the docs going out
15:50:20 <webr3> ... we can't do it once it goes out, contents of default profile is tied to the spec, we need to get consensus, lc-wise, to it
15:50:31 <ivan> q+
15:50:39 <webr3> manu: that effectively says we shouldn't change the default profile after it goes to rec..
15:50:57 <manu> ack ivan
15:51:05 <webr3> ... we could just define the minimum possible..
15:51:33 <webr3> ivan: i think we could do the following.. there is a core set of terms and prefixes we just need, we have to pop them in and collect them
15:51:48 <webr3> ... what we should set up is the mechanism whereby the resolution will happen
15:54:00 <webr3> ivan: let's only put in w3c well knows first, rdf: for example
15:54:20 <webr3> ... then open up mechanism after rec to add new things
15:55:11 <webr3> q+ to ask if any other spec references a "moving part"
15:55:22 <manu> ack webr3
15:55:22 <Zakim> webr3, you wanted to ask if any other spec references a "moving part"
15:56:09 <webr3> nathan: does any other rec have this moving part to it?
15:56:27 <webr3> ivan/steven: yes, plenty xml related to
15:56:52 <webr3> manu: okay so we don't think this will hurt our LC
15:58:04 <webr3> ... we need terms and prefixes to add
15:58:06 <manu> ACTION: Nathan to put together list of prefixes and terms for default profiles
15:58:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-62 - Put together list of prefixes and terms for default profiles [on Nathan Rixham - due 2011-02-17].
15:58:12 <webr3> nathan: I'll do that
15:58:20 <webr3> manu: top of the hour
15:59:31 <webr3> ivan: how about edits?
15:59:41 <webr3> shane: how should i do them, edit or propose edits?
15:59:54 <webr3> manu: let's not get stuck behind the bike shed
16:00:20 <webr3> ... my preference is just to edit the spec
16:00:30 <webr3> shane: that's fine w/ me, that's my preference too
16:00:38 <webr3> [general agreement]
16:00:43 <Zakim> -ShaneM
16:00:44 <Zakim> -Knud
16:00:44 <Zakim> -Steven
16:00:45 <Zakim> -manu
16:00:49 <ivan> zakim, drop me
16:00:51 <Knud> Knud has left #rdfa
16:00:52 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
16:00:54 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:00:59 <Zakim> -webr3
16:01:08 <webr3> meeting ended
16:01:15 <webr3> tracker, make draft minutes
16:01:31 <webr3> rrsagent, make draft minutes
16:01:31 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make draft minutes', webr3.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:01:48 <webr3> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:01:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate webr3
16:02:02 <webr3> np