Chatlog 2011-06-02

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

13:40:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:40:14 <RRSAgent> logging to
13:40:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:40:16 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
13:40:18 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
13:40:18 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 20 minutes
13:40:19 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:40:19 <trackbot> Date: 02 June 2011
13:58:44 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
13:58:59 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
13:58:59 <Zakim> Attendees were Kingsley_Idehen
13:59:23 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #rdfa
14:02:35 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:02:36 <Zakim> +??P12
14:02:41 <manu> zakim, I am ??P12
14:02:41 <Zakim> +manu; got it
14:03:37 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
14:04:51 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:04:51 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
14:05:17 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
14:05:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see manu, MacTed
14:05:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see ShaneM, MacTed, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, danbri, manu, manu1, trackbot
14:06:57 <Zakim> +??P19
14:07:04 <ShaneM> zakim, I am ??P19
14:07:04 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
14:12:55 <ivan> it is bank holiday, very few people from EU can make the call
14:13:20 <ivan> zakim, code?
14:13:20 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), ivan
14:13:49 <Zakim> +??P0
14:13:59 <ivan> zakim, ??P0 is me
14:13:59 <Zakim> +ivan; got it
14:16:48 <manu> Agenda:
14:16:50 <manu> Chair: Manu
14:16:51 <ivan> scribenick: ivan
14:16:52 <manu> Scribe: Ivan
14:16:54 <manu> Present: Manu, Ivan, Ted, Shane
14:17:06 <manu> Topic: Candidate Rec - Outstanding issues?
14:17:14 <manu> LC comments not addressed?
14:17:20 <ivan> manu: last call comments not addressed
14:17:28 <manu> Niklas Lindstrom's issue...
14:17:46 <ivan> s/strom/ström/
14:18:28 <ivan> manu: what I tried to say that it is unknown whether people are not using safe curies in @about because safe curies are unknown, or whether they do not need curies there
14:19:08 <manu> Ivan: In my experience - I really dont' like Safe CURIEs, but I used them in @about and @resource - in 1.1, I'm very happy to use regular CURIEs in @about and @resource.
14:19:32 <manu> Shane: What was the subject that you referenced via a Safe CURIE?
14:20:29 <manu> Ivan: W3C slides... all have the same root URI that is used in @about, but they do not refer to the page... they refer to some other page.
14:20:57 <manu> Ivan: I can't use the base URI, or I can repeat the full URI - but I don't like doing either - I wanted to use a CURIE in @about and @resource
14:21:22 <manu> Shane: So, you were using a CURIE as a short-hand URI.
14:22:19 <manu> Shane: The only time I use CURIEs in @about is when I specify named bnodes.
14:22:26 <manu> Ivan: If I can avoid using bnodes, then I try...
14:22:45 <manu> Shane: I agree with your use of CURIEs
14:23:09 <ivan> manu: the question is: I tried to outline in my response
14:23:14 <ivan> ... do everyone agree?
14:24:07 <manu> my response to Niklas's response:
14:24:16 <ivan> q+
14:24:42 <ivan> manu: if we establish anything qnames, then we would produce a huge confusion
14:25:06 <ivan> ... removing curies is a non-option because safe curies are rarely used
14:25:25 <ivan> ... i do made the assumption that curies are not use in @about and @resource
14:25:32 <ivan> ... although we do not know in future
14:25:56 <ivan> ... I think these showed that we do not want to take the approach Niklas is offering
14:26:04 <ivan> ... actually, mailto and sip is also a problem
14:26:06 <manu> ack ivan
14:26:34 <manu> Ivan: Yes, that was my argument to Niklas - we have to balance an existing but remote danger of a problem with the requirement of many users.
14:26:58 <manu> Ivan: We have to acknowledge that technically, Niklas has a point - but we should live with that in the interest of ease for web page authors.
14:27:23 <ivan> ShaneM: my position is known
14:27:47 <ivan> .... I would continue using safe curies because I know what I am doing
14:27:59 <ivan> ... but there is no way we can really avoid having problems
14:28:16 <ivan> ... the only way to avoid the problem would be to not allow curies
14:28:20 <ivan> ... that is not an option
14:28:53 <ivan> manu: I do not think there is anyone in the group who would disagree
14:28:59 <ivan> .... I think we addressed the issue
14:29:12 <ivan> ... and we will not try to limit the new way of writing curies
14:30:18 <ivan> PROPOSED: Do not restrict the value space of CURIE-s
14:30:22 <ivan> Ivan: +1
14:30:23 <manu> +1
14:30:36 <ShaneM> +1
14:30:37 <MacTed> +0
14:30:38 <ivan> RESOLVED: Do not restrict the value space of CURIE-s
14:32:15 <manu>
14:37:47 <manu> (discussion of any LC comments that we think may have been missed - there are none)
14:42:20 <manu> (discussion about formatting of LC-comments page - add link to formal response)
14:47:52 <manu> (discussion about which implementations will be ready for Candidate Rec)
14:48:18 <manu> Ivan Herman's PyRDFa and Gregg Kellogg's Ruby RDFa are pretty much done
14:48:46 <manu> Shane McCarron's SPREAD RDFa Processor, Manu Sporny's librdfa processor, will most likely be done
14:49:33 <manu> No idea if Toby's parser will be updated, or if there will be new processors by commercial implementers.
14:52:40 <manu> Google, Yahoo and Facebook have implementations - but we don't know if they'll make those public - probably not
14:55:03 <ShaneM> NOTE - we should ensure we have tests that use profiles other than the default profiles
14:57:17 <ivan> ShaneM: there are no real editorial issues any more for CR
14:57:30 <ivan> manu: there are no coordination issues either
15:07:51 <manu> Topic: Close open issues on June 9th 2011
15:08:30 <manu> PROPOSAL: Re-ping people that have not responded to 2nd LC issues and if there is no response, close all issues by June 9th 2011.
15:08:42 <ivan> Ivan: +1
15:08:47 <manu> +1
15:09:17 <MacTed> +1
15:09:23 <ShaneM> +1
15:09:29 <manu> RESOLVED: Re-ping people that have not responded to 2nd LC issues and if there is no response, close all issues by June 9th 2011.
15:09:38 <manu> Ivan: We may want to ping the 1st LC folks a third time