Chatlog 2011-07-21

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

13:51:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:51:07 <RRSAgent> logging to
13:51:09 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
13:51:09 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:51:09 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
13:51:11 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
13:51:11 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
13:51:12 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:51:12 <trackbot> Date: 21 July 2011
13:51:12 <manu1> Guest: Stéphane (scor) Corlosquet
13:51:12 <manu1> Guest: Henri (bergie) Bergius
13:51:12 <manu1> Guest: Niklas (lindstream) Lindström
13:51:14 <lindstream> lindstream has joined #rdfa
13:54:16 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
13:54:24 <Zakim> + +44.123.456.aaaa
13:54:33 <SebastianGermesin> zakim, i am aaaa
13:54:34 <Zakim> +SebastianGermesin; got it
13:57:35 <Zakim> +??P5
13:57:53 <gkellogg> zakim, +??P5 is gkellogg
13:57:53 <Zakim> sorry, gkellogg, I do not recognize a party named '+??P5'
13:57:54 <Zakim> +??P6
13:58:05 <gkellogg> zakim, i am +??P5
13:58:05 <Zakim> sorry, gkellogg, I do not see a party named '+??P5'
13:58:08 <Zakim> +scor
13:58:19 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
13:58:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see SebastianGermesin, ??P5, ??P6, scor
13:58:22 <gkellogg> zakim, i am ??P5
13:58:23 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
13:58:32 <tomayac> tomayac has joined #rdfa
13:58:41 <lindstream> zakim, I am +??P6
13:58:41 <Zakim> sorry, lindstream, I do not see a party named '+??P6'
13:58:55 <Zakim> +??P12
13:59:00 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P12
13:59:00 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
13:59:08 <lindstream> zakim, I am ??P6
13:59:09 <Zakim> +lindstream; got it
13:59:20 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa
13:59:51 <scor> zakim, who is on the phone
13:59:51 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', scor
13:59:58 <scor> zakim, who is on the phone?
13:59:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see SebastianGermesin, gkellogg, lindstream, scor, manu1
14:00:33 <gkellogg> scribe: gkellogg
14:00:46 <Zakim> +Steven
14:00:48 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
14:00:53 <Zakim> + +3539149aabb
14:00:55 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:00:55 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
14:00:57 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
14:00:57 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
14:01:01 <Knud> Knud has joined #rdfa
14:01:19 <Steven> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:01:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see SebastianGermesin, gkellogg, lindstream, scor, manu1, Steven, MacTed (muted), +3539149aabb
14:01:27 <Knud> zakim, I am +aabb
14:01:27 <Zakim> sorry, Knud, I do not see a party named '+aabb'
14:01:30 <Zakim> +??P34
14:01:35 <Knud> zakim, I am aabb
14:01:41 <Zakim> +tomayac
14:01:50 <Zakim> +Knud; got it
14:01:55 <ShaneM> zakim, I am ??P34
14:01:57 <Knud> zakim, mute me
14:02:13 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
14:02:17 <Zakim> Knud should now be muted
14:02:31 <gkellogg>
14:03:26 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
14:03:39 <Zakim> + +358.405.25aacc
14:03:39 <scor> scribe: scor
14:03:43 <manu1> Agenda:
14:03:49 <bergie> zakim, I am aacc
14:03:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see SebastianGermesin, gkellogg, lindstream, scor, manu1, Steven, MacTed (muted), Knud (muted), ShaneM, tomayac, +358.405.25aacc
14:04:03 <bergie> zakim, mute me
14:04:22 <Zakim> +bergie; got it
14:04:22 <Steven> agenda?
14:04:31 <Zakim> bergie should now be muted
14:05:03 <Steven>
14:05:15 <scor_> scor_ has joined #rdfa
14:05:20 <scor> manu1: any change to the agenda?
14:07:35 <scor_> manu1: everyone ok for having a call on Aug 4th?
14:07:36 <bergie> I *may* be able to join Aug 4th, but not sure
14:07:53 <scor_> manu1: Aug 4th is the only telecon which might be cancelled
14:08:34 <scor_> Topic: update
14:09:14 <scor_>
14:09:17 <manu1> I owe you guys a front-page...
14:09:18 <gkellogg> Linter -
14:10:10 <scor_> scor_: hope to launch early next week
14:10:53 <scor_> gkellogg: mimic google rich snippets. is todo, plus other schemas like FOAF, SIOC
14:11:13 <scor_> manu1: fantastic to work on that, should be beneficial for lots of people
14:11:53 <scor_> manu1: we want to get Microdata and microformats folks on board, ensure that they have edit/mod privileges to the website, but I have not been successful so far (very busy and missed them on IRC)
14:12:26 <tomayac> ok w/ me
14:12:35 <bergie> looks good
14:12:35 <scor_> manu1: any concerns with including other groups? and launch early next week anyways?
14:13:11 <scor_> gkellogg: we don't have microformats now (no parser available). if anyone has pointers to parser (XSLT maybe)
14:13:19 <scor_> manu1: not much available
14:13:55 <scor_> Topic: Microdata/RDF conversion
14:14:54 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
14:14:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate Steven
14:15:26 <Steven> Chair: Manu
14:15:53 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
14:15:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate Steven
14:16:55 <gkellogg> q+
14:18:27 <ShaneM> q+
14:18:37 <manu1> ack gkellogg
14:18:49 <gkellogg> Topic with Hixie comment:
14:18:59 <scor_> manu1: the RDF conversion steps could be removed the RDF processing rules from the microdata specs
14:19:34 <bergie> q+
14:19:42 <ShaneM> ack ShaneM
14:19:51 <manu1> ack bergie
14:19:51 <bergie> zakim, unmute me
14:19:54 <Zakim> bergie was not muted, bergie
14:20:25 <scor_> bergie: if the RDF processing were to be removed from microdata, we would end up with 2 separate formats - that might be bad.
14:20:36 <bergie> zakim, mute me
14:20:36 <Zakim> bergie should now be muted
14:20:37 <lindstream> q+
14:20:38 <scor_> bergie: then would people both with RDFa at all for SEO?
14:20:45 <scor_> s/both/bother
14:21:26 <manu1> zakim, who is making noise?
14:21:37 <Zakim> manu1, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: lindstream (46%), scor (15%)
14:21:43 <bergie> the advantage for microdata not being RDF would of course be clarity: you do microdata only for SEO, RDFa for linked data
14:22:06 <ShaneM> I do agree that if microdata stops having an RDF mapping it would be a good thing
14:22:13 <scor_> lindstream: could there be one monolithic format for as a subset of RDFa 1.1?
14:23:24 <scor_> manu1: if the RDF steps are removed from microdata, this might be enough to avoid forming the W3C TAG RDFa/Microdata TF. 
14:23:59 <scor_> manu1: but then, people might think that there is no reason to implement RDFa for SEO because it seems more complex (but has roughly the same level of complexity as Microdata for the use cases). However, there are other important use cases for RDFa - universal data model for the web, publishing data via your website in a way that is compatible with Linked Data and with larger systems that integrate data. There are good reasons for picking each technology - Microformats if you want to publish basic information or dip your toes into the lower-case semantic web. Microdata if you want something a bit more advanced than Microformats and something that will work with w/ a simple API. RDFa if you want something that is designed for Linked Data, the upper-case Semantic Web, allows you to create your own Web vocabularies, allows you to do vocabulary mixing easily, works with big data.
14:25:23 <manu1> Topic: Alternate @profile proposals
14:25:25 <lindstream>
14:26:33 <scor_> lindstream: profiles are complex. primary suggestion (item #2) is to move mapping of terms from a syntax level to a semantic level
14:26:53 <scor_> lindstream: use the vocab attr only. and instead describe vocabularies which import other terms
14:27:14 <scor_> lindstream: like and ogp, they define every single term that they think people will need
14:28:07 <scor_> lindstream: it's vocabulary design, as opposed to embeding vocab definitions in RDFa
14:28:20 <scor_> lindstream: markup would look more like microdata
14:28:28 <manu1> q+
14:28:33 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:29:07 <scor_> manu1: at the time, we didn't see problems or any danger with profiles
14:29:43 <tomayac> looking at your gist, lindstream:
14:29:50 <lindstream> q+
14:30:05 <scor_> manu1: in your email, you provide a mechanism to define terms. solution #2 is interesting for the RDF people (the rest don't care because it's close to microdata syntax)
14:30:37 <manu1> ack manu1
14:31:00 <tomayac> is this something like inlined grddl?
14:32:35 <gkellogg> q+
14:32:37 <scor_> lindstream: solution #2 specifies a new emerging pattern for the semantic web (broader than RDFa)
14:32:50 <scor_> lindstream: great value in linking terms from your vocabs to other vocabs
14:33:38 <scor_> lindstream: defining this mapping vocabulary is for the benefit of the general RDF community
14:33:40 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:33:53 <gkellogg>
14:34:50 <lindstream> q+
14:34:57 <scor_> gkellogg: some of the RDFS entailment rules would accomplish the same thing. we could generate a subset vocab for class and properties.
14:34:59 <manu1> ack gkellogg
14:35:45 <scor_> lindstream: good point, will include that in my next email. chicken and egg: you produce triples intended to be remapped, which won't be remapped until other use the same mechanism
14:36:34 <scor_> manu1: there were a few concerns about remove profiles
14:36:46 <scor_> s/remove/removing
14:36:54 <lindstream> q+
14:37:08 <scor_> manu1: people who want to keep profiles are ShaneM and the ePub folks
14:37:12 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:37:59 <scor_> lindstream: I looked at the ePub spec, it didn't seem too tricky to tweak their work and avoid profiles, and use vocab instead. I will look at that.
14:38:22 <lindstream> q+
14:38:38 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:38:50 <scor_> manu1: negative: the initial RDF graph you get from the RDFa is not as complete as the one you would using RDFS
14:41:07 <scor_> lindstream: from asking people to reference multiple vocabs in your page, we ask them to reference these other vocabs via an intermediary vocabulary (defined according to the mapping mecahnism)
14:41:12 <lindstream> q+
14:41:23 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:42:17 <scor_> manu1: what are you thoughts Shane?
14:42:59 <scor_> ShaneM: I've sent an email about my concerns. main point: there has to be a way for authors what they mean to say when using a term
14:43:07 <gkellogg> q+
14:43:23 <manu1> 1. Why is waiting for all @profile documents to load and then proceeding a bad thing? What makes it technically challenging to implement in a browser?
14:43:25 <manu1> 2. Is there an announcement mechanism for RDFa Core 1.1? We removed @version and pseudo-replaced it with @profile. Do we need to re-introduce @version? If we don't do this, an RDFa 2.0 processor may accidentally corrupt the intent of an RDFa 1.1 document.
14:43:28 <manu1> ack gkellogg
14:44:05 <scor_> gkellogg: re relying on another mapping document. the original reason for this discussion is the need to load the profile during the parsing of the HTML document.
14:44:08 <manu1> q+
14:44:11 <manu1> ack manu1
14:45:37 <lindstream> q+
14:46:08 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:46:08 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
14:46:11 <scor_> gkellogg: if you have the need to operate on the inferred triples, you still have a (weaker) dependency on the vocabulary 
14:46:19 <MacTed> q+
14:46:27 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:47:13 <scor_> MacTed: there has to be external dependencies no matter what, which have to be dereferenced later
14:47:32 <MacTed> q-
14:47:32 <gkellogg> q+
14:47:35 <manu1> ack MacTed
14:48:02 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
14:48:02 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
14:48:22 <scor_> lindstream: main point: these dependencies are on the semantic level, not at the parsing level. might break when using the follow your noise, but we always have triple we can operate on
14:49:22 <Steven> s/noise/nose/
14:50:02 <manu1> ack gkellogg
14:50:32 <scor_> gkellogg: this mechanism processing rules and remove dependencies during that processing
14:50:44 <mike_english> mike_english has joined #rdfa
14:51:04 <scor_> manu1: right, it does not remove the need to do follow your nose, but it puts in a the background, and people who want to use it can just do it
14:51:44 <gkellogg> q+
14:51:45 <ShaneM> q+ to ask about follow your nose
14:51:57 <manu1> ack gkellogg
14:52:14 <lindstream> q+
14:52:20 <manu1> ack shanem
14:52:20 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about follow your nose
14:52:29 <scor_> gkellogg: if we do use something like RDFS, the original statement does not get erased, it gets added
14:53:08 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:53:18 <scor_> manu1: how does the RDFa API handle the RDFS rules? We'll have to discuss that in the future.
14:55:27 <manu1> STRAW POLL: Drop @profile as it is defined now, and replace it with Niklas' @vocab proposal (#2 item in his e-mail - proxy vocabularies)
14:55:49 <manu1> +1
14:55:51 <gkellogg> +1
14:55:51 <SebastianGermesin> +1
14:55:52 <Steven> +0
14:55:53 <lindstream> +1
14:55:54 <bergie> +1
14:55:54 <scor_> scor: +1
14:55:57 <tomayac> 0 (no opinion really)
14:56:05 <ShaneM> +0
14:56:07 <Knud> +1 
14:56:55 <MacTed> +0 insufficiently considered for me to decide
14:57:10 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:57:10 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
14:57:31 <lindstream> q+
14:57:32 <scor_> manu1: looks like a consensus, but we should ask other groups like IPTC, Google and Facebook
14:57:40 <manu1> ack lindstream
14:57:56 <scor_> lindstream: we should consider the proposal #1
14:58:59 <scor_> manu1: Nathan said it was not possible in RDFa, but I can't recall his reasoning....
14:59:20 <lindstream> q+
14:59:21 <manu1> prefix="title: dc:"
14:59:53 <manu1> property="title" or property="dc:title"
14:59:58 <Zakim> -MacTed
15:00:01 <manu1> ack lindstream
15:00:21 <ShaneM> prefix=":title dc:"
15:00:30 <lindstream> prefix=":title dc:"
15:01:04 <scor_> manu1: can't we remove the : in the prefix list? Let's kick this discussion onto the mailing list.
15:03:27 <Zakim> -gkellogg
15:03:31 <Zakim> -Steven
15:03:33 <Zakim> -manu1
15:03:36 <Zakim> -SebastianGermesin
15:03:38 <Zakim> -tomayac
15:03:39 <Zakim> -scor
15:03:41 <Zakim> -bergie
15:03:43 <Zakim> -Knud
15:03:49 <Zakim> -ShaneM
15:04:03 <Zakim> -lindstream
15:04:05 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
15:04:07 <Zakim> Attendees were +44.123.456.aaaa, SebastianGermesin, scor, gkellogg, manu1, lindstream, Steven, +3539149aabb, MacTed, tomayac, Knud, ShaneM, +358.405.25aacc, bergie