Chatlog 2012-01-12

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

14:55:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:55:48 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:55:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:55:50 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:55:52 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
14:55:52 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
14:55:53 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
14:55:53 <trackbot> Date: 12 January 2012
14:56:20 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:56:27 <Zakim> +??P3
14:56:33 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P3
14:56:34 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
15:00:34 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdfa
15:01:04 <Zakim> +??P39
15:01:11 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P39
15:01:11 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
15:01:30 <Zakim> +??P37
15:01:35 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P37
15:01:35 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
15:01:49 <Zakim> +??P42
15:01:59 <Zakim> +scor
15:02:15 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:02:22 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:02:23 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:02:23 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:02:26 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:02:29 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa
15:03:06 <Zakim> +Steven
15:03:31 <manu1> Agenda:
15:04:06 <Steven> Scribe: STeven
15:04:11 <Steven> Scribe: Steven
15:04:54 <Steven> Topic: Planning
15:05:09 <Steven> Manu: Are we ready for LC, are we OK with the timeline?
15:05:20 <Steven> ... the first reviews are already coming in
15:05:29 <manu1> Topic: Any Remaining Issues?
15:05:36 <Steven> ... so are there any remaining issues?
15:05:59 <Steven> Manu: Gavin Carothers of RDF WG is raising issues on CURIE syntax next week
15:06:17 <Steven> ... they feel that we are too inclusive
15:06:39 <Steven> ... he's comment is about being interpreted as CURIE
15:06:50 <Steven> ... we need to tighten up the CURIE syntax
15:06:59 <Steven> ... they propose a narrower definition in SPARQL
15:07:13 <gkellogg> q+
15:07:18 <Steven> ... so that people couldn't have http:// be detected as a CURIE
15:07:20 <ShaneM> q+ to ask about http
15:07:33 <manu1> ack gkellogg
15:07:45 <niklasl> q+
15:07:52 <Steven> Gregg: One issue is the ability to have a CURIE with path information in it, can't have a slash, can you?
15:08:19 <Steven> Manu: They allow slash in theirs, I believe.
15:08:53 <manu1> ack shaneM
15:08:53 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about http
15:08:59 <Steven> ... if it doesn't then we'd be in trouble
15:09:24 <Steven> Shane: Why do they think http: can be detected as a CURIE?
15:09:33 <Steven> Manu: if you declare http as a prefix
15:09:54 <Steven> ... they think that it shouldn't be allowed, and be the same as in SPARQL; I'd be OK with it as is
15:10:15 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:10:35 <Steven> Niklas: I too am wary about http: as prefix
15:10:49 <Steven> ... I'd be interested to see how it is done
15:11:22 <Steven> Manu: Two issues 1) backwards incompatible
15:11:39 <Steven> ... if no one is using it, then there's no problem surely
15:11:45 <Steven> ... angels on the head of a pin
15:11:47 <ShaneM> note that almost all of RDF is 'angels on the head of a pin'
15:12:03 <Steven> ... 2) we wouldn't be using PNAME from SPARQL anyway, but a modification that doesn't allow '//' to exist at the beginning of a reference (to prevent http:// from being detected as a CURIE)
15:12:24 <Steven> ... so we would still have a different range of characters
15:12:41 <Steven> Steven: Anyway, SPARQL did it after we did
15:12:47 <Steven> Manu: heh. True.
15:13:04 <Steven> Manu: The rest seems to be editorial issues from RDF WG
15:13:04 <Steven> Shane: Except for the "URI/IRI" thing, that may not be editorial
15:13:37 <manu1> Steven: I thought we referenced IRI anyway, it's just called URI, right?
15:13:43 <Steven> Shane: No, in some cases it must be URI, like for @href and @src in HTML... I don't think we can change URI to IRI
15:13:48 <niklasl> q+
15:13:51 <manu1> Shane: The cases where we say URI, we mean URI - like in @href and @src
15:14:02 <gkellogg> q+ to talk about @href being a URL, not a URI
15:15:04 <Steven> SHane: I agree that it is an editorial change
15:15:12 <Steven> s/SH/Sh/
15:15:16 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:15:34 <Steven> Niklas: I agree that @href and @src are OK
15:15:55 <Steven> ... but there are someplaces where we need to check the details, we use IRI where we mean that
15:16:37 <Steven> Shane: In M12N URI points to ANYURI
15:16:51 <manu1> ack gkellogg
15:16:51 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to talk about @href being a URL, not a URI
15:16:59 <Steven> Steven: Which is the same value space, but a different lexical space IIRC
15:17:09 <Steven> Gregg: HTML spec uses URL
15:17:19 <Steven> ... but there are open issues on that
15:17:36 <Steven> ... I'd be wary of depending on the range of attributes that we are importing
15:17:49 <manu1> q+
15:17:58 <manu1> ack manu1
15:18:00 <Steven> ... point out that it is dependent on host language
15:18:17 <Steven> Manu: Can't we just say that RDFa supports IRIs everywhere, but keep in mind that the host language can restrict the lexical space. In that case, respect the host language, but RDFa can process IRIs everywhere. Can we reword along these lines, Shane?
15:18:34 <Steven> ... use IRI with a caveat
15:18:50 <Steven> Shane: probably
15:19:16 <Steven> Manu: But this would change our datatypes
15:19:23 <Steven> Shane: No I think it would be OK
15:19:56 <Steven> Manu: Any other issues?
15:20:00 <Steven> [silence]
15:20:13 <Steven> Manu: OK, discuss remaining issues next week, and then go to LC
15:20:16 <manu1> Topic: Review of RDFa Lite 1.1 and HTML+RDFa 1.1 Updates
15:20:26 <manu1>
15:20:31 <Steven> Manu: I updated these over the vacation
15:20:33 <manu1>
15:21:06 <gkellogg> q+ I don't see anything about the value space of <time> in html+rdfa
15:21:10 <Steven> Manu: Changes - conformance section cleaned up
15:21:51 <Steven> q+ gkellogg to discuss <time>
15:21:55 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:22:03 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:22:06 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:22:10 <Steven> Manu: updated dependencies
15:22:16 <Steven> ... on other docs
15:22:28 <Zakim> -Ivan
15:22:29 <Steven> ... added link and meta to the body of a doc
15:22:35 <niklasl> q+ to ask about Lite timeline
15:23:03 <Steven> Manu: Added datetime and value attributes
15:23:34 <Steven> Gregg: We can't just add @datetime, we also have to process the <time> element
15:23:36 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:23:36 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:23:37 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:23:48 <manu1> q+ to talk about TIME element processing
15:24:00 <Steven> ... gyear, gyearmonth, and duration I think
15:24:05 <manu1> ack n
15:24:05 <Zakim> niklasl, you wanted to ask about Lite timeline
15:24:09 <manu1> ack g
15:24:09 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to discuss <time>
15:24:35 <Steven> niklas: do Google or need this to be a rec by some particular time?
15:24:45 <Steven> Manu: I don't think so
15:25:46 <Steven> [Ivan joins]
15:26:44 <Steven> Ivan: We will have to decide the @resource vs @about at some time
15:27:29 <Steven> ... Jeni has a script to convert microdata on to RDFa Lite
15:27:48 <niklasl> q+
15:27:54 <Steven> ... she says it would be harder if there was only @resource
15:28:02 <manu1> ack manu1
15:28:02 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to talk about TIME element processing
15:28:24 <niklasl> .. Jeni's text related to microdata and @resource:
15:28:32 <Steven> Manu: About <time>, people are asking for support, but it gets complicated quickly... time has a variety of different syntaxes... some of them new.
15:28:55 <niklasl> (.. section
15:29:00 <Steven> ... and RDFa is about attributes, not elements
15:29:11 <ivan> q+
15:29:42 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:29:58 <Steven> niklas: See the link above from Jeni
15:30:26 <niklasl> .. correct link:
15:30:29 <Steven> . Jeni's text related to microdata and @resource:
15:31:05 <Steven> Ivan: This is only about RDFa+HTML5, we should say we will come back to it when they are ready
15:31:37 <Steven> ... <time> has a rocky history
15:32:22 <ivan> q+
15:32:28 <gkellogg>
15:32:47 <ivan> q-
15:33:13 <manu1> Topic: Reviewers for RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1
15:33:35 <manu1>
15:33:38 <Steven> Manu: Niklas was yours a full review of RDFa Core 1.1?
15:33:42 <Steven> Niklas: No, not full.
15:33:45 <manu1>
15:33:59 <Steven> Manu: We need 2 full reviews by non-editors
15:34:12 <Steven> Niklas: Given time constraints, I will do my best
15:34:20 <manu1> ACTION: Ivan to review RDFa Lite 1.1
15:34:20 <Steven> Ivan: I will do Lite
15:34:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-106 - Review RDFa Lite 1.1 [on Ivan Herman - due 2012-01-19].
15:35:06 <manu1> ACTION: Manu to review RDFa Core 1.1
15:35:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-107 - Review RDFa Core 1.1 [on Manu Sporny - due 2012-01-19].
15:35:23 <Steven> Shane: I will do Lite
15:35:32 <manu1> ACTION: Shane to review RDFa Lite 1.1
15:35:33 <trackbot> Created ACTION-108 - Review RDFa Lite 1.1 [on Shane McCarron - due 2012-01-19].
15:35:39 <Steven> Niklas: I will do COre
15:35:42 <manu1> ACTION: Niklas to review RDFa Core 1.1
15:35:43 <trackbot> Created ACTION-109 - Review RDFa Core 1.1 [on Niklas Lindström - due 2012-01-19].
15:35:44 <Steven> s/CO/Co/
15:36:04 <manu1> ACTION: Stephane to review XHTML+RDFa 1.1
15:36:04 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Stephane
15:36:23 <scor> ACTION: scor to review XHTML+RDFa 1.1
15:36:23 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - scor
15:36:41 <ShaneM> ACTION: Shane to ensure that the right working group name is used in each document
15:36:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-110 - Ensure that the right working group name is used in each document [on Shane McCarron - due 2012-01-19].
15:36:47 <manu1> ACTION: Ivan to review XHTML+RDFa 1.1
15:36:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-111 - Review XHTML+RDFa 1.1 [on Ivan Herman - due 2012-01-19].
15:37:04 <ShaneM> ACTION: Shane to ensure that the list of working group participants is correct in each document.
15:37:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-112 - Ensure that the list of working group participants is correct in each document. [on Shane McCarron - due 2012-01-19].
15:37:20 <Steven> Manu: We need reviews of the primer, over the next months, no hurry on that one
15:37:33 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
15:37:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate Steven
15:37:33 <manu1> Topic: Publication Timeline
15:37:52 <manu1>
15:38:16 <Steven> Manu: That is the timeline
15:39:07 <manu1> Jan 26th - WG resolves to take documents to Last Call
15:39:09 <manu1> Jan 31st - LC publication of RDFa Core, XHTML+RDFa and RDFa Lite 1.1
15:39:10 <manu1> Feb 21st - End of LC period for RDFa Core, XHTML+RDFa and RDFa Lite 1.1
15:39:33 <manu1> Feb 23th - Schedule Transition Call to Candidate Recommendation
15:39:35 <manu1> Feb 27th - WG resolves to take documents to Candidate Rec
15:39:37 <manu1> Mar 6th  - CR Publication of RDFa Core, XHTML+RDFa and RDFa Lite 1.1
15:39:38 <manu1> Apr 1st  - CR Implementation Reports in by April 1st
15:39:40 <manu1> Apr 10th - Schedule Transition Call to Proposed Recommendation
15:39:41 <manu1> Apr 17th - PR Publication of RDFa Core, XHTML+RDFa and RDFa Lite 1.1
15:39:43 <manu1> May 21st - Schedule Transition Call to Recommendation
15:39:44 <manu1> May 29th - REC Publication of RDFa Core, XHTML+RDFa and RDFa Lite 1.1
15:41:16 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about scheduling
15:41:29 <Steven> Steven: No time needed for dealing with LC comments?
15:41:35 <manu1> ack shanem
15:41:35 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about scheduling
15:41:37 <Steven> Ivan: I don't expect any major ones
15:41:45 <Steven> Shane: Short LC period here
15:42:01 <Steven> ... I expect some WGs will say that they can't meet the schedule
15:42:08 <Steven> Manu: We've warned them already... at the end of last year and we asked them for reviews.
15:43:02 <Steven> ... by email, warning of short last call;  HTML and RDF took us up on it
15:44:11 <Steven> Ivan: the timing is aggressive
15:44:19 <Steven> ... the Rec is scheduled for May
15:44:29 <Steven> ... charter is to end of July
15:46:29 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Adopt the publication timeline as discussed on this conference call, taking RDFa 1.1 to REC by the end of May 2012.
15:46:33 <ivan> +1
15:46:34 <gkellogg> +1
15:46:35 <manu1>  +1
15:46:37 <niklasl> +1
15:46:37 <Steven> Steven: +1
15:46:43 <scor> +1
15:46:58 <ShaneM> +1 I guess
15:47:02 <ivan> RESOLVED: Adopt the publication timeline as discussed on this conference call, taking RDFa 1.1 to REC by the end of May 2012.
15:47:21 <manu1> Topic: RDF Interfaces, RDF API and RDFa API
15:47:55 <Steven> Manu: Short of time to get these to Rec, also little interest in the group
15:48:08 <Steven> ... we lack people and time to do it
15:48:29 <Steven> ... so we propose to send them to a community group
15:48:36 <Steven> q+
15:49:02 <manu1> Steven: Normal practice is to turn these documents into notes, so they have a final state, then let another group take them over if they wanted them.
15:49:15 <ivan> q+
15:49:17 <Steven> Steven: Normal practice is to publish as a note, and then let someone take them over
15:49:20 <ivan> ack Steven 
15:49:30 <Steven> Manu: Problem is that API is incomplete
15:49:43 <manu1> ack ivan
15:50:26 <Steven> Ivan: In the note we can put in the status that it is not final
15:50:41 <Steven> ... but a note is a proper ending state
15:50:54 <niklasl> q+
15:51:01 <ShaneM> I agree it should be a note
15:51:25 <Steven> Niklas: I've previously expected Notes to be finished, so I share Manu's concern
15:52:04 <MacTed> +1 note (maybe "draft note"?) with clear caveats, possibly beyond just the status section (which many people do skip over, ill advised as that may be)
15:52:05 <Steven> Ivan: There are precedents for incomplete work being published as a note
15:52:30 <Steven> Manu: As long as there are big red warnings, OK
15:54:32 <Steven> Ivan: A note is a final state, so that you know no one is working on it
15:55:07 <Steven> Ivan: In the charter we had a Cookbook planned.
15:55:13 <ShaneM> q+ to ask if the IRI text is okay?
15:55:16 <Steven> ... so we need to remove that
15:55:20 <manu1> ack
15:55:21 <manu1> ack
15:55:41 <ShaneM> Even though this specification exclusively
15:55:41 <ShaneM> references IRIs, it is possible that a Host Language will
15:55:41 <ShaneM> restrict the syntax for its attributes to a subset of IRIs
15:55:41 <ShaneM> (e.g., <aref>href</aref> in HTML5).  Regardless of
15:55:41 <ShaneM> validation constraints in Host Languages, an RDFa Processor
15:55:42 <ShaneM> is capable of processing IRIs.
15:56:01 <Steven> Shane: Suggested text, is that ok?
15:56:05 <Steven> Manu: Looks OK
15:56:22 <Steven> Ivan: Answer to RDF WG comments right?
15:56:31 <Steven> Manu: We discussed it before you joined Ivan
15:56:59 <Steven> ... next week we will discuss CURIE vs PNAME and any other issues that could be substantative.
15:58:15 <Steven> ... Jan 26 we resolve to go to LC
15:59:00 <Steven> [ENDS]
15:59:00 <Zakim> -manu1
15:59:03 <Zakim> -MacTed
15:59:06 <Zakim> -Ivan
15:59:06 <Zakim> -gkellogg
15:59:06 <Zakim> -scor
15:59:07 <Zakim> -Steven
15:59:09 <Zakim> -niklasl
15:59:11 <Zakim> -??P42
15:59:13 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
15:59:15 <Zakim> Attendees were manu1, niklasl, gkellogg, scor, MacTed, Steven, Ivan
15:59:17 <Steven> rrsagent, make minutes
15:59:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate Steven