Chatlog 2011-07-07

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

13:52:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:52:15 <RRSAgent> logging to
13:52:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:52:17 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
13:52:19 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
13:52:19 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
13:52:20 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:52:20 <trackbot> Date: 07 July 2011
13:53:23 <manu> Agenda:
13:53:26 <manu> Chair: Manu
13:53:26 <manu> Guest: Niklas (lindstream) Lindström
13:53:26 <manu> Guest: Stéphane (scor) Corlosquet
13:55:50 <lindstream_> lindstream_ has joined #rdfa
13:56:19 <manu> zakim, code?
13:56:19 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), manu
13:57:52 <lindstream> lindstream has joined #rdfa
14:00:07 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:00:14 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
14:00:15 <Zakim> Attendees were 
14:00:41 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:00:49 <Zakim> +scor
14:00:57 <Zakim> +??P21
14:01:00 <Zakim> +??P18
14:01:00 <manu> zakim, this is ??P21
14:01:00 <Zakim> sorry, manu, I do not see a conference named '??P21' in progress or scheduled at this time
14:01:07 <manu> zakim, ??P21 is me
14:01:07 <Zakim> +manu; got it
14:01:20 <Zakim> +??P26
14:02:02 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
14:02:08 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:02:11 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
14:02:14 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
14:02:26 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
14:02:30 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
14:02:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P18, scor, manu, ??P26, MacTed (muted)
14:02:41 <manu> zakim, ??26 is lindstream
14:02:48 <Steven_> zakim, code?
14:03:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see lindstream, Zakim, RRSAgent, scor, MacTed, Steven_, manu1, danbri, SebastianGermesin, tinkster, manu, gkellogg, trackbot
14:03:09 <Zakim> sorry, manu, I do not recognize a party named '??26'
14:03:17 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), Steven_
14:03:23 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
14:03:29 <Zakim> -??P26
14:03:45 <Zakim> +??P26
14:03:51 <Zakim> +Steven
14:03:51 <Steven_> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:04:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P18, scor, manu, MacTed (muted), ??P26, Steven
14:04:07 <gkellogg> zakim, ??P26 is gkellogg
14:04:22 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P18, scor, manu, MacTed (muted), ??P26, Steven
14:04:31 <lindstream> zakim, ??P18 is me
14:04:34 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
14:04:37 <Steven_> zakim, I am Steven
14:04:48 <Zakim> +lindstream; got it
14:04:52 <Zakim> ok, Steven_, I now associate you with Steven
14:05:15 <gkellogg> zakim, ??P26 is me
14:05:15 <Zakim> I already had ??P26 as gkellogg, gkellogg
14:06:15 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
14:06:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see lindstream, scor, manu, MacTed (muted), gkellogg, Steven
14:06:40 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:06:40 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
14:06:46 <manu> scribe: Ted
14:06:52 <manu> scribenick: MacTed
14:08:16 <manu> Topic: Introduction of Niklas Lindström
14:09:07 <MacTed> lindstream: consultant in Sweden, working with RDF for 6+ years, semantics and fidelity of expression are prime interests
14:09:43 <MacTed> ... coming back to RDFa from API perspective, but now considering Microdata/mapping concerns
14:10:11 <manu> Topic: Updates on HTML WG position on TAG note
14:10:28 <manu>
14:10:49 <MacTed> manu: HTML WG has discussed what to do about TAG note; basic response is "need information"
14:11:05 <Steven_> q+
14:12:16 <MacTed> Steven_: all the more reason why we should send a formal objection 
14:12:24 <MacTed> manu: better that the TAG does that
14:12:26 <Steven_> ack me
14:13:37 <MacTed> manu: HTML WG has basically asked TAG to make their concerns more clear and formal, before they will act
14:14:01 <MacTed> Steven_: if TAG does so, that's fine.  if not, then we should step up.
14:14:38 <MacTed> manu: that's the path we'll take
14:14:44 <manu> Topic: Review official position e-mail on TAG issue
14:14:54 <manu>
14:16:30 <MacTed> manu: ...reviewing official position email draft, concern by concern...
14:17:44 <MacTed> ... "CONCERN: Multiple specifications for the same task" -- effectively, same concern as TAG has expressed.  
14:18:00 <gkellogg> q+
14:18:02 <MacTed> ... not "which spec should exist?" but "should there be two specs?"
14:18:47 <lindstream> q+
14:19:00 <manu> ack gkellogg
14:19:03 <MacTed> gkellogg: 2 key questions -- should there be 2 markups, and what is range of data to be marked up?
14:19:34 <MacTed> ... i.e., what is the purpose of metadata markup in HTML?  presumably to generate data compatible with other W3C specs, e.g., RDF
14:19:50 <manu> ack lindstream
14:20:46 <steven__> steven__ has joined #rdfa
14:22:34 <MacTed> q+
14:22:51 <MacTed>  (discussion)
14:24:23 <lindstream> q+
14:24:35 <MacTed> ack MacTed
14:24:54 <manu> ack MacTed
14:25:10 <manu> MacTed: This is a range issue - what use cases are supported?
14:25:14 <manu> ack lindstream
14:25:40 <MacTed> lindstream: apart from use cases (what), microdata raises concern of *how*
14:26:18 <MacTed> ... how much do you expose to an expert as opposed to a newbie?
14:27:07 <MacTed> manu: is the important thing, how much complexity do new people have to deal with straight-away?
14:27:58 <MacTed> lindstream: that's the gist.  e.g., if something looks like a date, is that enough, or does it have to be specifically typed, etc?
14:28:18 <scor> bear in mind that the reason why md was created is because RDFa was covering too many use cases and was overkill for the basic web developers... the TF should focus on identifying practical use cases which RDFa covers (and not no md) which make sense for regular web developers (the audience of md)
14:29:51 <MacTed> manu: `CONCERN: Consensus on "No Change"` -- TAG must know that this really isn't an option
14:30:02 <lindstream> q+
14:30:57 <MacTed> lindstream: it's very bad to have two specs for the same thing... 
14:31:45 <MacTed> manu: `CONCERN: Key implementers will choose to not be involved.`  XHTML and XForms both had task forces to figure out best way forward; neither was successful because key players didn't play
14:32:06 <manu> ack lindstream
14:32:15 <MacTed> ... advice is, make sure the list we've sent gets involved
14:32:56 <MacTed> ... `CONCERN: Agreement and then non-action` -- everybody agrees on plan, but nobody acts on agreement...
14:33:19 <MacTed> ... advice is to actively review commitments and report on follow-through
14:34:38 <MacTed> ... `CONCERN: Slow creation of Task Force` -- if it takes too long to create TF, other WG (RDFa, HTML, others?) timelines are jeopardized
14:35:13 <MacTed> ... advice is to prioritize this TF effort
14:35:39 <lindstream> q+
14:35:51 <manu> ack lindstream
14:36:34 <MacTed> lindstream: conflicting specs have happened before. this is opportunity for W3C to show they can handle such conflicts...
14:39:18 <MacTed> Steven_: does TAG think that creating this TF is their job?
14:39:19 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
14:39:35 <MacTed> manu: nobody wants the job...  everybody's waiting to see who steps forward
14:39:48 <MacTed> ... we'll nudge TAG to accept responsibility
14:40:07 <MacTed> ... `CONCERN: TAG Note is not actionable` 
14:40:36 <MacTed> ... advice: formalize objections & concerns, so that something actually comes of this
14:42:03 <MacTed> ACTION: manu to revise email to TAG based on today's discussion, with "last comments" due ASAP mailing list 
14:42:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-87 - Revise email to TAG based on today's discussion, with "last comments" due ASAP mailing list  [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-07-14].
14:42:25 <manu> Topic: Thoughts on RDFa Basic vs. RDFa Advanced
14:42:35 <manu>
14:43:12 <MacTed> lindstream: Microdata seems to be surface data with no fidelity. 
14:43:39 <MacTed> ... can quickly be mapped to triples, if you base off URI of current document
14:44:56 <MacTed> ... vocab and profile mechanisms could be used to add fidelity
14:45:25 <MacTed> ... somewhat akin to GRDDL
14:46:17 <manu> This is somewhat akin to the JSON-LD coercion approach:
14:47:01 <MacTed> Manu points out similarity of JSON-LD coercion approach:
14:47:11 <Zakim> +??P2
14:47:57 <MacTed> lindstream: and also to GLUON:
14:47:58 <gkellogg> q+
14:49:25 <manu> ack gkellogg
14:49:35 <MacTed> lindstream: this might also answer how to represent RDF connections in RDFa
14:49:43 <manu> q+ to note browser manufacturers don't like this.
14:50:01 <lindstream> q+
14:50:26 <MacTed> gkellogg: putting profile in RDFa Advanced seems to make this a less useful path forward...?
14:50:27 <manu> ack manu
14:50:27 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note browser manufacturers don't like this.
14:51:54 <MacTed> manu: browser vendors are expressing preference for non-RDFa APIs, because they think RDFa API makes caching and other performance issues harder to address
14:52:23 <MacTed> manu: trouble with profile is that browser has to stop processing, retrieve profile doc, and then resume processing
14:52:54 <manu> ack lindstream
14:52:59 <MacTed> ... browser vendors just don't like profile...
14:54:30 <MacTed> lindstream: put profile in Basic, but allow basic API processing *without* profile application (and thus low fidelity).  Advanced brings profile processing (and high fidelity)...
14:55:20 <manu> zakim, who is on the call? 
14:55:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see lindstream, scor, manu, MacTed, gkellogg, Steven, ??P2
14:55:38 <ShaneM> zakim, ??P2 is ShaneM
14:55:38 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
14:56:58 <MacTed> Topic: Philip's comments on APIs 
14:56:58 <MacTed> manu: should be taken very seriously, from Opera, works on this stuff in his spare time, but he is also a potential browser implementer and understands the issues clearly.
14:58:20 <Steven_> q+
14:58:27 <MacTed> manu: maybe we should sit on WHAT WG, mozilla, other channels, and ask them about API thoughts
14:58:53 <MacTed> ... we do want a path that makes it very easy for browser vendors to implement
14:58:58 <Steven_> q-
14:58:59 <lindstream> q+
14:59:41 <MacTed> ... "easy to implement in Javascript doesn't mean easy to implement in a performant way"
15:00:04 <manu> ack lindstream
15:01:18 <MacTed> lindstream: performance concerns seem addressable by low-fidelity microdata-ish RDFa Basic. 
15:01:31 <MacTed> q+
15:01:37 <manu> ack MacTed
15:01:59 <manu> MacTed: It seems that the browser vendors are mostly concerned about human interaction - most of what we're takling about is machine interaction.
15:02:12 <lindstream> q+
15:02:54 <manu> MacTed: Basic to Advanced progression makes a great deal of sense to me - initial pass - low fidelity. Once there is something there for human to deal w/ then we do more advanced / less performant mechanism.
15:03:43 <MacTed> lindstream: interesting consideration is "end users" vs "re-users" even more than "human" vs "machine"
15:04:19 <lindstream> q+
15:04:24 <scor> manu - we should not be pestering them
15:04:50 <MacTed> manu: anyone willing to sit on WHAT-WG channel and ask questions?
15:05:06 <MacTed> lindstream: will be polling relevant existing contacts...
15:05:10 <manu> ack scor
15:05:23 <scor> +1
15:05:47 <MacTed> manu: right, this is not about pestering, but about checking for concerns with APIs, and figuring out how best to address...
15:06:12 <MacTed> ... correcting misundersatndings, etc.
15:08:00 <MacTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:08:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate MacTed
15:08:05 <MacTed> RRSAgent, make minutes public
15:08:05 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', MacTed.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:08:08 <Zakim> -gkellogg
15:08:10 <Zakim> -manu
15:08:11 <MacTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:08:14 <Zakim> -Steven
15:08:16 <Zakim> -lindstream
15:08:18 <Zakim> -ShaneM
15:08:18 <MacTed> trackbot, end call
15:08:18 <trackbot> Sorry, MacTed, I don't understand 'trackbot, end call'. Please refer to for help
15:08:20 <Zakim> -scor
15:08:24 <MacTed> trackbot, end conference
15:08:24 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:08:24 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been scor, manu, MacTed, Steven, gkellogg, lindstream, ShaneM
15:08:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:08:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate trackbot
15:08:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:08:26 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in :
15:08:26 <RRSAgent> ACTION: manu to revise email to TAG based on today's discussion, with "last comments" due ASAP mailing list  [1]
15:08:26 <RRSAgent>   recorded in