Chatlog 2011-06-23

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

13:56:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:56:49 <RRSAgent> logging to
13:56:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:56:51 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
13:56:53 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
13:56:53 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
13:56:54 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:56:54 <trackbot> Date: 23 June 2011
13:57:14 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
13:57:13 <manu1> Chair: Manu
13:57:15 <manu1> scribenick: manu1
13:57:17 <manu1> Present: Ted, Knud, Manu, Thomas, Sebastian
13:57:18 <manu1> Guest: Gregg Kellogg, gkellogg
13:57:19 <manu1> Guest: Stephane Corlosquet, scor
13:57:21 <Zakim> +SebastianGermesin
13:57:47 <manu1> Regrets: Ivan, Steven, Shane
13:58:34 <Zakim> +??P18
13:58:35 <manu1> zakim, code?
13:58:36 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), manu1
13:59:56 <Knud> Knud has joined #rdfa
14:00:09 <Zakim> + +1.415.459.aaaa
14:00:40 <tomayac> tomayac has joined #rdfa
14:01:20 <Zakim> +Knud
14:01:25 <Zakim> + +1.781.866.aabb
14:01:42 <manu1> zakim, gregg is aaaa
14:01:42 <Zakim> sorry, manu1, I do not recognize a party named 'gregg'
14:01:43 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa
14:01:52 <manu1> zakim, gkellogg is aaaa
14:01:52 <Zakim> sorry, manu1, I do not recognize a party named 'gkellogg'
14:02:10 <manu1> zakim, aaaa is gkellogg
14:02:10 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
14:02:20 <Zakim> +hta
14:02:33 <tomayac> zakim, +hta is me
14:02:36 <Zakim> sorry, tomayac, I do not recognize a party named '+hta'
14:03:09 <scor> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:03:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see SebastianGermesin, ??P18, gkellogg, Knud, +1.781.866.aabb, hta
14:03:11 <tomayac> zakim, hta is me
14:03:12 <Zakim> +tomayac; got it
14:03:13 <gkellogg> zakim, +1.415.459.aaaa is me
14:03:13 <Zakim> sorry, gkellogg, I do not recognize a party named '+1.415.459.aaaa'
14:03:22 <scor> zakim, aabb is scor 
14:03:22 <Zakim> +scor; got it
14:04:51 <Knud> zakim, mute me
14:04:51 <Zakim> Knud should now be muted
14:04:54 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
14:04:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see SebastianGermesin, ??P18, gkellogg, Knud (muted), scor, tomayac
14:05:12 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P18
14:05:12 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
14:05:16 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #rdfa
14:05:48 <scor> zakim, who is making noise?
14:06:02 <Zakim> scor, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: manu1 (54%)
14:06:06 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
14:06:18 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:06:20 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
14:06:21 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
14:06:21 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
14:06:29 <gkellogg> zakim, mute me
14:06:29 <Zakim> gkellogg should now be muted
14:06:35 <Zakim> -manu1
14:06:54 <scor> hi Knud :)
14:07:01 <Knud> Hi Stephane!
14:07:17 <Zakim> +??P18
14:07:45 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:07:45 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
14:07:56 <Zakim> -??P18
14:08:23 <scor> manu1: Any changes or updates to the agenda? Anything that we should discuss? (no changes requested)
14:08:28 <manu1> zakim, code?
14:08:28 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), manu1
14:08:51 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
14:08:51 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
14:08:52 <Zakim> +??P18
14:09:52 <gkellogg> zakim, unumte me
14:09:52 <Zakim> I don't understand 'unumte me', gkellogg
14:10:00 <gkellogg> zakim, unmute me
14:10:00 <Zakim> gkellogg should no longer be muted
14:10:05 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:10:05 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
14:10:19 <manu1> scribenick: manu1
14:10:32 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
14:10:32 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
14:10:35 <manu1> Agenda:
14:11:56 <manu1> Topic: Introductions - Henri, Gregg, Stéphane
14:12:30 <manu1> Gregg: Hi - been working with RDFa for about 3 years - Ruby parser - took the core of what Ben Adida did and updated it to match the latest specs.
14:12:40 <manu1> Gregg: implemented entire RDF stack and SPARQL 1.0 implementation.
14:13:46 <manu1> Gregg: Fairly active on RDFa mailing list - also worked with Gracenote major, music label for new packaging for systems for music
14:14:10 <manu1> Gregg: Connected Media Experience - chaired that WG - architect for that for a number of years - worked w/ Manu as IE (because of RDFa aspects)
14:14:58 <manu1> Gregg: Interest in RDF/RDFa/Linked Data has been all consuming :)
14:15:03 <gkellogg> Blog post on CME and RDF:
14:15:18 <manu1> Stephane: Started with RDFa 4 years ago - started at DERI - try my best to advocate RDFa in Drupal.
14:15:43 <manu1> Stephane: 2009 - led work to integrate RDFa into Drupal 7 - been deployed on 50,000 sites!
14:16:18 <manu1> Stephane: I do other RDF-related work in Drupal. Also contributed 2 chapters to a Drupal book, being published this month or next month - one of the chapters is on RDFa in Drupal 7. "The Definitive Guide to Drupal 7" by Apress -
14:16:49 <gkellogg> zakim, mute me
14:16:49 <Zakim> gkellogg should now be muted
14:17:06 <manu1> Manu: Henri Bergius is currently on vacation until the 26th, but will be joining us soon. He is focused on integrating structured data and semantics into content management systems as part of the IKS project: . He has done quite a bit of work with JavaScript, RDFa and JSON-LD.
14:17:30 <manu1> Topic: TAG discussion on RDFa/Microdata
14:17:42 <manu1> Link to TAG discussion:
14:18:12 <tomayac> manu1, could you clarify what of this discussion is public?
14:20:09 <manu1> Manu: Basically, the TAG had asked Ivan, myself and Thomas Roessler to be there to advise them in a technical capacity regarding a letter that they're preparing to send to the RDFa Working Group and the HTML Working group. The letter notes that having two specifications (RDFa and Microdata) that do effectively the same thing is a problem. They seem to intend to launch a group to discover if two specifications are, in fact, necessary and to see if there is a path forward that merges the specifications in some way. You can learn more by going to the link and reading the public minutes about the TAG discussion last week.
14:22:15 <tomayac> thanks for the clarification, manu1
14:22:56 <tomayac> still i feel like proactively tweeting about the situation is wrong. reactively responding seems more adequate. can you confirm?
14:23:40 <manu1> Manu: Yes, that's correct Thomas. We should stay silent until they have officially sent the letter, they were supposed to do that yesterday, but they hadn't. So, I don't know the current status - but we should expect to get something to the effect of what's discussed in the minutes (referenced above).
14:23:41 <manu1> Stephane: What does the TAG do?
14:23:50 <manu1> Manu: The W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG) is supposed to coordinate on issues related to the architecture of the Web. It is their job to make sure that all specifications coming out of W3C are technically consistent. They also advise the Director of W3C on whether or not Technical publications should go to Official Recommendation status. In this case, they are questioning whether two specifications that effectively do the same thing should /both/ become Recommendations. There is discussion that this decision should be made by people that are not biased.
14:29:04 <gkellogg> Gregg: I believe Google's position is that people get RDFa markup wrong; specifying prefixes is part of the problem.
14:29:40 <scor> Stephane: RDFa is also suffering from all the more complex RDFa 1.0 snippets available online, which gives people this impression of overly complex syntax.
14:31:12 <manu1> Thomas: At some point, I'll try to contact more Google folks to see what happened...
14:31:20 <manu1> Sebastian: What can we do to put the thought "RDFa 1.1 is simpler than 1.0"? is there a plan?
14:32:46 <scor> convert microdata snippets in RDFa 1.1 and compare the differences
14:33:58 <manu1> Sebastian: Why don't we show why RDFa 1.1 is better than RDFa 1.0
14:34:03 <scor> manu wrote a blog post about that: covers some of this
14:34:31 <manu1> manu1: Yes, we do need to show people that the RDFa 1.1 markup for is just as simple, if not more simple in some cases. Michael Hausenblas and Richard Cyganiak at DERI have already started a project like this:
14:34:32 <manu1>
14:34:37 <manu1> manu1: I took a first stab at markup examples here:
14:34:52 <manu1> and
14:36:37 <manu1> Manu: It would be great if we help Michael with the examples, and if we blog about this effort.
14:37:52 <manu1> ACTION: Sebastian to write a blog post summarizing why RDFa 1.1 is better than RDFa 1.0
14:37:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-84 - Write a blog post summarizing why RDFa 1.1 is better than RDFa 1.0 [on Sebastian Germesin - due 2011-06-30].
14:38:11 <gkellogg> Sure, I'll help with examples.
14:38:25 <gkellogg> Microformats examples might be good too
14:38:26 <manu1> ACTION: Gregg to write up a couple of RDFa 1.1 examples for
14:38:26 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Gregg
14:39:19 <scor> manu1: no problem
14:42:01 <gkellogg> Manu: There may be an opportunity here to create an RDFa Basic for use cases like, Google, Facebook, Mozilla, Opera and the rest of the folks that have said that they'd like RDFa to be simpler. RDFa Advanced could be for backwards compatability and for those that need features like @prefix, @profile and other more advanced functionality needed by folks like, Drupal, UK Government, PaySwarm, etc.
14:42:07 <gkellogg> I'd like to see @profile in RDFa Basic
14:42:55 <gkellogg> zakim, unmute me
14:42:55 <Zakim> gkellogg should no longer be muted
14:43:32 <manu1> Gregg: May we should consider type coercion rules like in JSON-LD in RDFa Profiles and having @profile in a basic version of RDFa?
14:44:14 <gkellogg> Maybe limited set of NCName'd profiles, such as hCard, ...
14:45:34 <manu1> Manu: The WHATWG folks really didn't like the idea of having to dereference an external profile when parsing RDFa. RDFa Basic, if approved by Google, Mozilla, Opera, etc., would remove many of the things they have had an issue with while RDFa Advanced would ensure backwards compatibility and some of the more advanced RDFa features. Keep in mind that this is only worth doing if it'll create convergence between the structured data languages. No need to have two conformance levels if Google, Mozilla, and Opera don't have any desire to implement the simpler version of RDFa.
14:45:44 <manu1> Stephane: Would slimmed down version include RDFa Default Profile?
14:45:49 <manu1> Manu: Yes, RDFa Basic could allow you to use CURIEs, but only in the Default Profile. This effectively enforces hard coded prefixes in RDFa Basic. That is, if you want to re-bind prefixes or use profiles, you must use RDFa Advanced.
14:45:56 <manu1> Stephane: What is the reason to use advanced configuration?
14:47:02 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa
14:48:56 <manu1> Stephane: Remember that WHATWG and Google also said that they had issues w/ @property and @rel too.
14:49:14 <manu1> Stephane: Keep @property and take out @rel?
14:49:24 <manu1> Manu: That's true, but we are trying to do multiple things here: 1) Have a stripped down version of RDFa for Google, Facebook and the browser vendors, 2) Ensure backwards compatibility for RDFa 1.0 via RDFa Advanced, 3) Provide more advanced functionality for the RDF folks and the Microformats community via RDFa Advanced 4) Ensure that RDFa Basic is upwards-compatbile with RDFa Advanced. If we change the processing rules such that they're different for RDFa Basic vs. RDFa Advanced, we will break downwards compatibility in a pretty big way.
14:50:53 <Knud> I agree: different versions of RDFa need to be downwards compatible.
14:50:58 <manu1> Stephane: Already pulled out @resource and @rev - bc is already broken... right?
14:50:58 <manu1> Manu: In a way, yes - if people use Advanced RDFa attributes in documents, and a basic RDFa processor attempts to extract data - there is a chance that the triples generated are going to be different. For example, if they use @prefix to re-define a prefix in the RDFa Default Profile, or use @resource to overwrite an @href value.
14:52:52 <manu1> Topic: Last Call comment deadline in HTML WG
14:53:08 <manu1> Manu: Microdata and RDFa Last Call comments due by early August
14:53:10 <manu1> Manu: Should we start logging issues that we have with Microdata? There is a chance that some people don't understand the issues and it would be good to have them on the record. Thoughts?
14:54:32 <manu1> Gregg: I think we should definitely log issues related to RDF w/ Microdata.
14:55:16 <manu1> Gregg: Goals of Microdata and RDFa were different - RDF generated by Microdata should be made easier to process by RDF tools.
14:56:45 <manu1> Stephane: A few people have already pointed out some bugs - for example: The ways URIs are generated for RDF properties.
15:00:00 <manu1> Manu: I think that we should make our concerns with Microdata known as LC comments.
15:01:21 <manu1> Gregg: I think we need to comment - there is no good reason for doing two things. Corollary: Types of triples generated in Microdata should not diverge from what RDF has been doing.
15:01:29 <SebastianGermesin> +1 for commeting
15:01:40 <gkellogg> +1