Chatlog 2011-06-30

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

13:57:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:57:11 <RRSAgent> logging to
13:57:13 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:57:13 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
13:57:15 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
13:57:15 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
13:57:16 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:57:16 <trackbot> Date: 30 June 2011
13:57:59 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
13:58:16 <manu1> Chair: Manu
13:58:19 <Zakim> +??P17
13:58:32 <manu1> Present: Gregg, Sebastian, Shane, Steven, Thomas, Manu, Ted, Knud
13:58:32 <manu1> Guest: Henri (bergie) Bergius
13:58:32 <manu1> Guest: Stéphane (scor) Corlosquet
13:58:32 <gkellogg> zakim, ??P17 is gkellogg
13:58:32 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
13:58:50 <Zakim> + +358.405.25aaaa
13:59:22 <Zakim> +??P21
13:59:26 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P21
13:59:26 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
13:59:41 <Knud> Knud has joined #rdfa
13:59:55 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
13:59:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see gkellogg, +358.405.25aaaa, manu1
14:00:15 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #rdfa
14:00:16 <manu1> zakim, aaaa is bergie
14:00:17 <Zakim> +bergie; got it
14:00:36 <Zakim> +Knud
14:01:10 <Steven_> Steven_ has joined #rdfa
14:01:22 <Steven_> zakim, dial steven-617
14:01:22 <Zakim> ok, Steven_; the call is being made
14:01:23 <Zakim> +Steven
14:01:38 <manu1> Agenda:
14:01:41 <MacTed> Zakim, code?
14:01:41 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), MacTed
14:01:47 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
14:01:53 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:01:53 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
14:01:55 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
14:01:55 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
14:02:26 <Zakim> +scor
14:02:44 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa
14:02:57 <scor> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:02:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see gkellogg, bergie, manu1, Knud, Steven, MacTed (muted), scor
14:02:59 <Knud> zakim, mute me
14:02:59 <Zakim> Knud should now be muted
14:03:51 <Zakim> +??P37
14:04:03 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
14:04:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see gkellogg, bergie, manu1, Knud (muted), Steven, MacTed (muted), scor, ??P37
14:04:25 <SebastianGermesin> zakim, i am +??P37+
14:04:25 <Zakim> sorry, SebastianGermesin, I do not see a party named '+??P37+'
14:04:42 <Steven_> zakim, who is on the call?
14:04:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see gkellogg, bergie, manu1, Knud (muted), Steven, MacTed (muted), scor, ??P37
14:04:49 <SebastianGermesin> zakim, i am ??P37
14:04:49 <Zakim> +SebastianGermesin; got it
14:05:04 <tomayac> tomayac has joined #rdfa
14:06:10 <manu1> scribenick: Manu
14:06:10 <manu1> Manu: Any changes or updates to the agenda? Anything else we should discuss today? (no additions heard)
14:06:10 <manu1> Topic: Introductions: Henri Bergius
14:06:19 <Zakim> +tomayac
14:06:22 <manu1> Henri: I am Henri Berguis - Web developer from Finland
14:06:46 <manu1> Henri: Been doing web development since late 1990s, working w/ IKS project - building CMS tools that use RDFa to make pages editable and annotatable.
14:07:08 <manu1> Henri: I am the author of the VIE library - reads RDFa from page, creates JavaScript for managing it in more CMS-friendly manner.
14:07:21 <Zakim> +??P39
14:07:31 <ShaneM> zakim, ??P39 is ShaneM
14:07:31 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
14:07:36 <manu1> Henri: I am more focused on ensuring that RDFa is the format that all CMS systems can be used to describe content model and make content model editable.
14:08:20 <manu1> Manu: Great to have you in the group - your JavaScript expertise is very welcome.
14:08:48 <ShaneM> ScribeNick: ShaneM
14:08:48 <manu1> scribenick: ShaneM
14:09:20 <manu1> Henri: I am also collaborating with Sebastian.
14:09:34 <manu1> Topic: Official Position on WWW-TAG issue
14:10:24 <ShaneM> Manu: TAG is forming a task force to try to harmonize RDFa and Microdata.
14:10:24 <ShaneM>
14:10:35 <ShaneM> ... this is a discussion to find out how the group feels about the TAG finding and formulate a response.
14:10:36 <Steven_> q+
14:10:46 <manu1> q-
14:10:50 <bergie> q+
14:11:22 <manu1> q+ 
14:11:23 <bergie> q-
14:11:24 <tomayac> q+
14:11:26 <ShaneM> Steven_: It is fine that the TAG has said this and it is an obvious step to unify all of the structured data languages.  It will take a lot of the hassle away for Web Developers if it is successful...
14:11:43 <ShaneM> ... but we have spent years getting buy in for RDFa and then in a weekend microdata appeared with no community input.
14:11:51 <manu1> ack Steven_
14:12:01 <ShaneM> ... it is a subset of what we can do.  But if we can get them on board to meet our usecases as well then that is a gain for the community.
14:12:08 <ShaneM> manu: I agree.
14:13:03 <ShaneM> ... in the TAG the discussion was 'does everyone want 2 or 3 ways to do structured data on the web?'  And the obvious answer is no.  There is a lot of overlap and a lot of duplicate work for authors and parser developers.
14:13:09 <Steven_> q+
14:13:30 <Zakim> -scor
14:13:36 <manu1> ack manu1
14:13:37 <ShaneM> ... we should recognize that unification is not what everyone wants here.  The browser vendors may want to just support Microdata and to them that is 'unification'.
14:13:44 <Zakim> +scor
14:13:55 <ShaneM> tomayac: might be painful for some, but probably the best thing to happen.
14:14:19 <manu1> q+ to explain:
14:14:21 <ShaneM> ... a single format would be a great thing.  What authors want is to get more structured data on the web.
14:14:29 <manu1> ack tomayac
14:14:52 <ShaneM> ... microdata came out of nowhere, but Google is supporting it (
14:15:27 <manu1> ack Steven_
14:15:35 <ShaneM> ... if there is one format this would be a good thing.  I have seen some discussion of RDFa Lite.  It might make it easier but would not reduce confusion.  It would be a bad choice to do RDFa lite.
14:16:09 <ShaneM> Steven_: A word of warning.  Note that the same thing was supposed to happen with XForms and WebForms.  There was a task force.  But no one from the web browser side ever showed up at the meetings and nothing ever happened.
14:16:17 <ShaneM> manu: what would you suggest is done differently?
14:16:50 <scor> q+
14:16:51 <ShaneM> Steven_: Well... if they don't turn up then make it an issue in the Hypertext Coordinate Group or similar group.  Keep a fire lit under them.  Force them to turn up and do the work.
14:17:08 <ShaneM> ... suspect in the webforms case they deliberabely didn't turn up to allow the task force die a death.
14:17:26 <manu1> ack manu1
14:17:26 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to explain:
14:17:36 <ShaneM> manu: so we need to ensure they show up and there is buy in.  Otherwise it will fail.  But there are personalities that might not necessarily want to work together.
14:18:08 <ShaneM> manu: there seemed to be a lot of confusion about the overlap.  I put together a comprehensive analysis of the formats.  Updating as people give feedback.
14:18:16 <ShaneM> ... fairly complete now.
14:18:17 <manu1>
14:18:18 <tomayac> manu1, really great work! thanks for doing it!
14:19:13 <ShaneM> scor: I have not seen anyone in the HTML5 community talking about this TAG task force.  Is there anything going on there?
14:19:57 <ShaneM> manu: I have seem two responses that indicate that they hope this task force is as successful as the ones for XHTML2 and WebForms.  Which is passive agressive, wanting the Task Force to fail, and very disappointing.
14:20:11 <ShaneM> ... it is important that we show them we want everyone working together on this.
14:20:14 <ShaneM> q+
14:20:20 <manu1> ack scor
14:20:54 <manu1> Shane: Does the TAG recognize that there is already a REC of RDFa?
14:21:11 <manu1> Manu: They recognize it, but they don't want that to get in the way of unifying structured data on the Web.
14:21:33 <manu1> ShaneM: The goal here should be the expanded use of the semantic web, make it easier for people to put out meaningful semantic data in their content.
14:21:52 <manu1> ShaneM:If that means throwing everything out and adopting Microdata - then that's the solution.
14:21:56 <Steven_> q+
14:22:21 <manu1> ShaneM:I see us being perfectly reasonable and making tweaks to address Microdata use cases, but I don't see WHAT WG changing or caring about unification.
14:23:01 <manu1> ShaneM:If there is no buy-in by Google, - then we're going to waste six months... we need buy-in.
14:23:04 <manu1> ack shanem
14:23:06 <manu1> ack steven_
14:23:32 <ShaneM> Steven_: I would recommend that we let the TAG know we think that this is a good approach but we are pessemistic about the possibilities.  point to the remarks from the HTML5 group.
14:23:52 <ShaneM> ... note that it has been tried before and it has failed.  That we would particularly request support from them to put weight behind it.
14:24:06 <ShaneM> ... if all they do is start the task force and not follow up, the chances are high that it will just fail.
14:24:43 <Steven_> q+
14:24:53 <ShaneM> manu: we are perfectly willing to work with everyone to find a unified way forward, but if we don't get participation from everyone then it won't work.
14:24:57 <manu1> ack Steven_
14:25:16 <ShaneM> ... we would need agreement up front from everyone that whatever comes out is implemented and supported.
14:25:37 <ShaneM> Steven_: Put in an objection against microdata+html5 as a last call comment?
14:25:53 <scor> q+
14:27:59 <ShaneM> ShaneM: The TAG should really object to microdata and RDFa last call.
14:27:59 <manu1> ack scor
14:28:44 <bergie_> bergie_ has joined #rdfa
14:28:45 <bergie_> scor: What is to stop HTML WG from forking Microdata and doing a Web Forms / HTML5 / etc. all over again?
14:28:47 <ShaneM> manu: there is nothing preventing that and is what will happen unless we get buy in from everybody.
14:29:26 <ShaneM> Steven_: There is some sort of moral pressure.  Hixie has been threatening this all along... but some manufacturers dont support going off and doing in in WhatWG because of IP issues (if nothing else).
14:30:00 <ShaneM> ACTION: Manu to draft an official response for discussion on the mailing list
14:30:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-85 - Draft an official response for discussion on the mailing list [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-07-07].
14:30:08 <tomayac> +1
14:30:09 <scor> +1
14:30:13 <gkellogg> +1
14:30:14 <Knud> +1
14:30:23 <manu1> Topic: RDFa/Microdata Task Force Suggestions
14:31:06 <ShaneM> TAG is looking for suggestions on people who can be in the group.  They are looking for people who are not too invested in the existing solutions.
14:31:54 <ShaneM> ... don't want the people who are actually working on the specifications.
14:32:15 <ShaneM> ... Greg had mentioned Dan Brickley might be good.  Philip Jägenstedt might be good.
14:32:42 <ShaneM> ShaneM: Has Jeni volunteered?
14:32:59 <ShaneM> manu: no, but we need to get her there.  It was her idea and she is able to talk about each approach in a fair manner.
14:33:37 <ShaneM> ... Richard Cyganiak might be a good candidate.
14:33:53 <ShaneM> What about Nathan Rixham?  
14:33:55 <gkellogg> Michael Hausenblas might be a good candidate
14:34:15 <ShaneM> He has been hard to get lately, but we could ask him.  Note that these people may be viewed as "RDF sympathizers"...
14:34:22 <manu1> Henri Sivonen might be good
14:35:01 <ShaneM> ShaneM: What's wrong with RDF people?  Any solution that doesn't at the very least generate RDF would be bad, right?
14:35:06 <manu1> RV Guha, Kavi Goel
14:35:20 <scor> Manu: we just need to balance, and have non-RDF people too
14:35:48 <ShaneM> Shane:I agree that we need balance
14:35:57 <Steven_> Someone from Drupal?
14:36:22 <manu1> Evan Sandhaus (NYT), Andreas Gebhardt (Getty), and Stuart Myles (Associated Press) 
14:36:54 <Steven_> Someone from Reuters?
14:37:14 <ShaneM> Shane: What about Misha Wolf?
14:37:23 <manu1> Gregg: Yves Raimond, Nick Humphrey - both from BBC might be good.
14:37:24 <Knud> From Drupal: how about Stepháne?
14:39:09 <scor> Facebook folks: David Recordon, Paul Tarjan
14:39:10 <ShaneM> ShaneM: remember that large groups have trouble making decisions.  A task force of more than 5 people isn't going to decide anything.
14:39:33 <ShaneM> Steven_: Yes, but we need enough candidates so that when people say no we still have critical mass.
14:40:09 <manu1> Chris Messina, Brian Suda, Kevin Marks
14:40:31 <manu1> Steven: Jeni Tennison should Chair
14:40:35 <scor> +1
14:40:35 <ShaneM> Manu: Chair recommendations?
14:40:37 <ShaneM> Shane: Jeni Tennison
14:40:40 <gkellogg> +1
14:41:08 <manu1> Shane: Somebody from the TAG should Chair - Noah if Jeni can't do it.
14:41:40 <manu1> Shane: Roland Merrick? He was great at getting stuff done.
14:41:57 <ShaneM> ... note that he is retired, but we might persuade him.
14:42:21 <ShaneM> ACTION: Manu deliver our list of suggestions to the TAG as people we think might be good participants in the group.
14:42:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-86 - Deliver our list of suggestions to the TAG as people we think might be good participants in the group. [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-07-07].
14:42:53 <manu1> Topic: RDFa Linter
14:43:28 <ShaneM> gkellogg: had previously created a distiller that did rdfa, and more recently json-ld and microdata.
14:43:54 <ShaneM> ... can generate whatever output.  Approached by scor about expanding this work.
14:44:07 <ShaneM> ... new thing in git that can parse any format, and produce a rich snippet view.
14:44:40 <ShaneM> ... in theory can take disgested forms of vocabularies and do some analysis to help people use the vocabularies correctly.
14:45:06 <ShaneM> scor: Had an idea to generalize the thing that FB promoted at
14:45:27 <gkellogg> Existing distiller:
14:45:48 <ShaneM> ... do some work to help with use of or sioc or whatever.  show that rdfa is on par with microdata
14:45:49 <gkellogg> Select 'rdfa' as output format.
14:46:10 <ShaneM> ... like a unified linter that will also show what search engines might do with your data.
14:46:15 <manu1> q+ to discuss why this is important
14:46:34 <manu1> ack manu1
14:46:34 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss why this is important
14:46:37 <ShaneM> ... not yet published, but hopefully will have something by this time next week.
14:46:54 <ShaneM> manu: one of the great things is that we have not traditionally had tools like this, and that has hurt us.
14:47:09 <ShaneM> ... we have been working hard, but we need all the tools in the ecosystem to be successful.
14:47:16 <ShaneM> ... fantastic that you have taken the intiative.
14:47:35 <scor> q+
14:47:58 <ShaneM> ... raises the question of where we put the tool when it is done.  I want to see the best coalesce on one site.  need to put that in a git hub and set it up so people can hack on it.
14:48:11 <ShaneM> ... we need a central place where I can learn about RDFa, test it, etc.
14:48:29 <ShaneM> q+
14:48:43 <ShaneM> scor: I agree that the rdfa community has been lacking a central place.
14:49:10 <ShaneM> ... I am not sure that the linter, for example, should be RDFa only or advertised as such.  It can do microdata as well.
14:49:22 <ShaneM> ... I dont want to fragment the community.
14:49:24 <manu1> Maybe we should have ?
14:49:51 <manu1> ack scor
14:49:59 <manu1> q+ to say no to RDFa-only.
14:50:27 <manu1> ack shanem
14:50:58 <ShaneM> ShaneM: Didn't we agree that we only wanted to have pointers to things, not necessarily that we would have the all the code in one place?
14:51:12 <scor>
14:51:17 <ShaneM> manu: yes, we did agree that.  I had forgotten.  Pointers to good tools well integrated would be sufficient.
14:51:41 <bergie_>
14:51:43 <scor>
14:52:09 <gkellogg> +1
14:52:44 <manu1> Topic: Thoughts on RDFa Basic vs. RDFa Advanced
14:52:56 <manu1>
14:55:26 <Zakim> -tomayac
14:55:48 <Zakim> +tomayac
14:55:48 <ShaneM> Manu explains why a single spec with a Basic and Advanced level might be a good solution if it covers the microdata use cases.
14:56:09 <ShaneM> scor: do we need a new name that doesn't include 'RDF' so people are not confused or scared.
14:56:23 <scor> sData?
14:56:36 <tomayac> minidata, a lil' bigger than microdata ;-)
14:56:36 <scor> for structuredData
14:56:44 <gkellogg> *lda*
14:56:44 <ShaneM> manu: do we need to rebrand? To something like: "Structure" or (or the suggestions above). I am in favor of doing this.  Some people are scared of the letters 'RDF'.  people who understand will know that the new thing still does RDF.
14:57:21 <scor> q+
14:57:28 <manu1> ack manu1
14:57:28 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to say no to RDFa-only.
14:57:34 <ShaneM> ... if the task force is successful, does anyone have an issue with rebranding?
14:57:35 <manu1> ack scor
14:57:39 <gkellogg> q+
14:58:05 <manu1> zakim, who is making noise?
14:58:15 <Zakim> manu1, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: tomayac (25%), manu1 (9%), scor (64%)
14:58:21 <manu1> zakim, mute tomayac
14:58:21 <Zakim> tomayac should now be muted
14:58:28 <Zakim> -bergie
14:58:51 <ShaneM> scor: if we rebrand does that mean we don't need to be backward compatible?
14:59:14 <scor> +1 for rebranding
14:59:14 <Steven_> +1 to that
14:59:17 <ShaneM> manu: not necessarily.  I think we need some sort of backwards compatibility if there is to be an RDFa 1.1 - but that's why we're talking about Basic and Advanced levels. The Basic level could break backwards compatibility.
14:59:30 <Knud> rebranding sounds good
14:59:33 <Knud> +1
14:59:33 <tomayac> -1
14:59:34 <Zakim> +bergie
14:59:38 <SebastianGermesin> +1
14:59:43 <SebastianGermesin> for rebranding
14:59:47 <bergie_> +1 for rebranding if we get one unified spec
14:59:55 <ShaneM> +1 to represent the unification
14:59:57 <manu1> +1 for rebranding if we have a unified spec.
15:00:07 <gkellogg> +1
15:00:21 <tomayac> +1 if unified, of course
15:00:49 <scor> zakim, who is making noise?
15:00:55 <ShaneM> Group seems to agree that it is good to rebrand if there is a unified spec going forward.
15:01:02 <ShaneM> No one seems to want to fight unification.
15:01:04 <Zakim> scor, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: bergie (9%), manu1 (54%), Steven (14%)
15:01:09 <ShaneM> q+
15:01:23 <ShaneM> ... it is up to the other communities to come to the table.
15:01:25 <manu1> ack gkellogg
15:01:36 <manu1> zakim, mute steven
15:01:36 <Zakim> Steven should now be muted
15:01:40 <ShaneM> Steven_: Since what they have is a subset of what we have, all we need to do is find a way to make them happy.
15:01:42 <manu1> zakim, unmute steven
15:01:42 <Zakim> Steven should no longer be muted
15:01:45 <Steven_> (for the minutes I was doing +1 to rebranding the unified version)
15:01:47 <manu1> zakim, mute bergie
15:01:49 <Steven_> zakim, who is noisy?
15:01:50 <Zakim> bergie should now be muted
15:02:03 <Zakim> Steven_, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
15:02:09 <ShaneM> gkellogg: If there are objections to syntactic choices that we made historically, then we need to be willing to move on that.
15:02:29 <bergie_> manu1: sorry about that, new phone (MeeGo, comes with RDF!)
15:02:40 <ShaneM> ... one of the things that makes RDFa challenging is that we can't have @rel and @typeof on the same element.  This is one place where microdata is better.
15:02:48 <manu1> ack shanem
15:03:00 <ShaneM> ... if w are unifying somehting new might be a different language and backward compatibilty is not important.
15:03:17 <Steven_> s/hting/thing/
15:03:53 <manu1> Shane: You guys said that given RDFa and RDF is a super-set of what Microdata and Microformats have, all we need to do is find a way to satisfy objections. The first job of the TF is to agree that whatever solution is put in place has the "force of law"
15:04:27 <manu1> Shane: If the TF agrees - everyone goes and does that. Either this WG goes away and a new one is created - or the HTML5+Microdata activity goes away - at some point, some one needs to stop work or combine work.
15:04:44 <manu1> Shane: Nobody here is objecting to the concept of having one path forward for Web developers.
15:05:05 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:05:06 <manu1> Shane: I think it's naive to say that "We can persuade WHATWG that RDFa is the solution."
15:05:15 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:05:50 <manu1> Ted: It would be nice to see a summary of use cases that are satisfied by RDFa 1.1 and not satisfied by Microformats and Microdata.
15:06:14 <ShaneM> manu: we have tried this and the whatwg says "we are not interested in those use cases".
15:06:17 <tomayac> +1 on what MacTed just said
15:06:17 <scor> q+
15:06:22 <ShaneM> Steven_: But that's what the unification is about.
15:06:28 <manu1> ack scor
15:06:38 <bergie_> q+
15:06:40 <ShaneM> MacTed: The point is that there is a superset and we need to adress them all.
15:07:14 <manu1> ack bergie_
15:07:24 <gkellogg> MD has problems with items with multi, or no types
15:07:29 <ShaneM> scor: one problem is that microdata items can only have one type.  multi-typing is important.  we can probably find use cases that support that.
15:07:39 <manu1> zakim, unmute bergie
15:07:39 <Zakim> bergie should no longer be muted
15:07:55 <scor> multi vocabularies is another use case too
15:08:12 <ShaneM> bergie_: Important use case is that hte data is something that can be reliable edited and sent back to the server.  microformats are not good for that.  microdata is so-so.
15:08:19 <ShaneM> manu: that's a good use case.  We have not had that one before.
15:08:27 <manu1> zakim, mute bergie
15:08:27 <Zakim> bergie should now be muted
15:08:35 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:08:35 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:08:40 <ShaneM> scor: multi-vocabuliaries on the same statement.
15:08:40 <ShaneM> Manu: Alright, we're out of time for today, but let's take some of this discussion to the mailing list and I'll follow up with the TAG.
15:09:03 <Zakim> -Steven
15:09:03 <Zakim> -Knud
15:09:05 <Zakim> -tomayac
15:09:06 <Zakim> -scor
15:09:06 <Zakim> -MacTed
15:09:09 <Zakim> -gkellogg
15:09:10 <Zakim> -SebastianGermesin
15:09:11 <Zakim> -ShaneM
15:09:13 <Zakim> -manu1
15:09:15 <Zakim> -bergie
15:09:17 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
15:09:19 <Zakim> Attendees were gkellogg, +358.405.25aaaa, manu1, bergie, Knud, Steven, MacTed, scor, SebastianGermesin, tomayac, ShaneM