Chatlog 2012-02-02

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

14:57:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:57:12 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:57:14 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:57:14 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:57:16 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
14:57:16 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:17 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
14:57:17 <trackbot> Date: 02 February 2012
14:58:59 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:59:17 <Zakim> +??P11
14:59:21 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P11
14:59:24 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
14:59:41 <Zakim> +??P16
14:59:44 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P16
14:59:44 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
15:01:27 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdfa
15:01:38 <Zakim> +??P19
15:01:47 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P19
15:01:48 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
15:02:34 <Zakim> + +1.612.217.aaaa
15:02:40 <ShaneM> zakim, aaaa is ShaneM
15:02:44 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
15:02:48 <ShaneM> zakim, mute me
15:02:52 <Zakim> ShaneM should now be muted
15:04:38 <Zakim> +Steven
15:05:16 <Zakim> +scor
15:06:03 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa
15:06:26 <manu1> Agenda:
15:06:33 <niklasl> q+
15:06:36 <gkellogg> q+ to ask about updates to CURIE
15:16:01 <scor> scribe: scor
15:06:37 <Steven> Manu: Any changes to the Agenda?
15:07:10 <scor> niklasl: should we talk about the issue about @id
15:07:10 <scor> Topic: ISSUE-121: Using @id to set subject in RDFa
15:07:16 <scor> manu1: yes, we have to respond to Sebastian's email
15:07:45 <Zakim> -ShaneM
15:07:50 <scor> manu1: We were clear on the call, there was no support. He misread the straw poll as some people were interested in supporting it when nobody in the WG thinks that it would be a good idea to support @id.
15:08:30 <ShaneM1> ShaneM1 has joined #rdfa
15:09:23 <Zakim> +ShaneM
15:09:29 <ShaneM> zakim, mute me
15:09:29 <Zakim> ShaneM should now be muted
15:09:45 <Zakim> + +1.781.273.aabb
15:09:54 <scor_> scor_ has joined #rdfa
15:10:04 <MacTed> Zakim, aabb is OpenLink_Software
15:10:04 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it
15:10:07 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:10:07 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:10:09 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:10:09 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:10:35 <scor_> manu1: His suggestion on @id and @typeof is in HTTP range-14 territory, it is a backwards-incompatible change... it is very complicated matter.
15:10:46 <scor_> niklasl: There is also the magnetism of @typeof now, where you have to check for @rel - I didn't intend to seem like I supported the change.
15:10:55 <niklasl> q+
15:11:10 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:11:14 <manu1> ack gkellogg
15:11:14 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to ask about updates to CURIE
15:11:19 <ShaneM> zakim, unmute me
15:11:19 <Zakim> ShaneM should no longer be muted
15:11:44 <scor_> Topic: CURIE update in RDFa Core
15:11:44 <scor_> gkellogg: Shouldn't we make the changes to CURIE in RDFa Core - the // and : changes?
15:11:56 <scor_> ShaneM: We approved it during the last call, it's in the spec.
15:13:00 <scor_> niklasl: ShaneM do you want me to write a note about http:// conflict?
15:13:24 <scor_> ShaneM: Is there a formal XML Schema definition for the new production for CURIE?
15:14:11 <scor_> niklasl: instead of a note, maybe we want to add a section?
15:14:21 <scor_> manu1: please suggest a text on the mailing list, Niklas.
15:15:35 <scor_> niklasl: there is already a regex in the IRI rfc
15:15:44 <scor_> niklasl: I'll try to see what we can reuse from there
15:16:01 <scor_> scribe: scor_
15:16:35 <ShaneM> zakim, mute me
15:16:35 <Zakim> ShaneM should now be muted
15:16:36 <manu1> Topic: RDFa 1.1 Last Call
15:16:44 <manu1>
15:16:57 <Steven>
15:17:01 <scor_> manu1: We're in last call. Great job everybody! Everything going smoothly so far...
15:18:01 <scor_> manu1: If a couple of people can write a blog post about the changes in RDFa 1.1, and let people know we're in last call so they can review the spec, that would be great.
15:18:01 <manu1> Topic: Plan for Candidate Recommendation phase
15:18:23 <scor_> manu1: we ask for two interoperable implementations
15:18:40 <Zakim> -gkellogg
15:18:49 <scor_> ... with Ivan and Gregg's parser we meet the minimum requirement for CR
15:18:58 <scor_> ... we have about 6 weeks to get any other ones done
15:19:17 <scor_> ... once we do that, we have to produce a report showing that these parsers pass the test suite
15:19:32 <scor_> ... in RDFa 1.0 we used EARL for the test results.
15:19:42 <scor_> ... I need to regenerate these reports for RDFa 1.1
15:19:55 <scor_> ... anyone has a better suggestion for creating these reports?
15:19:55 <Zakim> +??P60
15:20:02 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P60
15:20:02 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
15:20:20 <scor_> ... ok, we'll keep it the same for RDFa 1.1
15:21:07 <gkellogg> XMLLiteral tests are always problematic, maybe we could work on those?
15:21:10 <scor_> ... your parser does not have to pass all of the tests. All we need is for at least two parsers to pass each test to demonstrate interoperability.
15:21:49 <niklasl> q+
15:21:54 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:22:30 <scor_> niklasl: Have you tried using regex for improving the test suite?
15:22:47 <scor_> manu1: the test suite is on github, and you can run it locally
15:23:13 <scor_> manu1: XMLLiteral test can use some improvements, we just didn't have the time last time around. Maybe we can do something about it this time around?
15:23:29 <manu1> Topic: Test Suite Updates
15:23:59 <scor_> manu1: We have test suites for RDFa 1.0 in XHTML and SVGTiny. We have test suits for RDFa 1.1 in XML, XHTML, HTML4, SVGTiny, SVG, HTML5 and XHTML5.
15:24:10 <niklasl> q+
15:24:11 <manu1>
15:24:19 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:24:32 <scor_> niklasl: do we test the difference in default context at the moment?
15:24:36 <scor_> manu1: In XHTML, yes, in all the other languages, no, I don't think so.
15:25:29 <scor_> gkellogg: we might have some. need to check
15:26:13 <ShaneM> zakim, unmute me
15:26:13 <Zakim> ShaneM should no longer be muted
15:26:17 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about XHTML
15:27:35 <scor_> manu1: an update to the these suite we could do is test for pure HTML5 parsing (non-XML)
15:27:52 <gkellogg> q+ to ask about RDFa 1.1 Lite tests
15:28:16 <scor_> +q to ask about HTML5 parsers from browsers
15:28:21 <ShaneM> q-
15:28:28 <manu1> ack gkellogg
15:28:28 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to ask about RDFa 1.1 Lite tests
15:28:42 <ShaneM> We cannot require XHTML5+RDFa conformance for CR.
15:28:52 <scor_> gkellogg: we don't have any RDFa 1.1 Lite test. not sure how we would verify that something is not RDFa Lite
15:28:56 <niklasl> q+
15:28:58 <ShaneM> XHTML+RDFa 1.1 is its own language.  It is a superset of XHTML 1.1
15:29:24 <ShaneM> we dont do document tests - we do processor tests
15:29:35 <scor_> manu1: RDFa Lite is about document conformance, not processing conformance (which is what the test suite is about)
15:29:45 <manu1> ack scor_
15:29:48 <Zakim> scor_, you wanted to ask about HTML5 parsers from browsers
15:29:49 <scor_> gkellogg: we don't test what the processor graph outputs
15:31:04 <gkellogg> q+ to mention optional features: vocab entailment
15:31:08 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:31:31 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about xhtml testing and html5 testing
15:31:35 <scor_> niklasl: re. RDFa Lite in test suite: I'd be careful because processors should handle RDFa full
15:31:50 <manu1> ack gkellogg
15:31:50 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to mention optional features: vocab entailment
15:31:59 <manu1> q+ to discuss RDFa 1.1 Lite tests.
15:32:00 <scor_> niklasl: but we could add which of the test documents are RDFa Lite conformant
15:32:11 <scor_> gkellogg: agreed
15:32:40 <scor_> gkellogg: we don't have optional feature support like vocab entailment not happening unless some processor parameter is used
15:32:53 <manu1> ack shaneM
15:32:53 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about xhtml testing and html5 testing
15:33:51 <scor_> ShaneM: we don't care about element reordering wrt to RDFa processing, that's up to the HTML processor which hits the document before the RDFa processor does.
15:34:25 <scor_> manu1: you're technically correct, but not sure this is an acceptable answer in the HTML WG
15:35:15 <manu1> ack manu1
15:35:15 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss RDFa 1.1 Lite tests.
15:35:47 <scor_> manu1: RDFa Lite test - not certain we should have RDFa Lite test. the test suite is for testing processor conformance
15:35:57 <ShaneM> I am opposed to any tests that indicate they are RDFa Lite 1.1.  We do not want to encourage people to only test their processors to those.
15:36:07 <ShaneM> since a processor always is required to process full RDFa
15:36:08 <scor_> ... validators are the tools to test document conformance like RDFa Lite
15:36:48 <scor_> gkellogg: it would be useful to identify which documents are conformant to RDFa Lite
15:37:11 <Steven> I agree with Manu, we shouldn't have an RDFa Lite only portion of the test suite.
15:37:16 <scor_> gkellogg: ok
15:38:31 <scor_> manu1: optional features: 1) should we be able to get the processor graph and do queries against it? we do have a bit in the spec in RDFa Core (rdfa graph param in the URL)
15:39:03 <scor_> ... we could have a test for the rdfa processor graph (different test suite)
15:39:44 <scor_> ... do you think that would address your goal?
15:39:55 <scor_> gkellogg: struggling to find in the spec the mention of the url parameter
15:40:10 <manu1>
15:40:15 <scor_> gkellogg: not sure we have something like that for vocab entailment?
15:41:13 <scor_> ... section 10.1 talks about how to do entailment
15:41:16 <ShaneM> See sections 7.6.1 and 7.6.2 
15:41:22 <scor_> gkellogg: but no web service param is defined there
15:42:14 <scor_> manu1: your processor could do vocab entailment and the test suite would ignore the extra triples when checking the output graph
15:43:06 <scor_> gkellogg: but no url param is defined there
15:44:54 <ShaneM> it IS in the spec
15:44:54 <ShaneM> "Conforming RDFa processors are not required to provide vocabulary expansion.If an RDFa processor provides vocabulary expansion, it must not be performed by default. Instead, the processor must provide an option, vocab_expansion, which, when used, instructs the RDFa processor to perform a vocabulary expansion before returning the output graph."
15:45:53 <ShaneM> we should add clarifying text that this is a URL parameter
15:46:05 <ShaneM> that would NOT be a substantive change.
15:47:00 <scor_> Topic: Implementation Report for Candidate REC
15:47:37 <scor_> manu1: when we come out of LC we have to show we responded to all comments from LC phase
15:48:37 <scor_> manu1: this is mostly paperwork
15:49:30 <scor_> manu1: anyone other than Gregg, Ivan and myself willing to contribute to the test suite?
15:49:33 <niklasl> q+
15:50:05 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:50:08 <scor_> manu1: everything is on github
15:50:24 <scor_> niklasl: happy to contribute to the test suite
15:50:54 <scor_> manu1: I propose that we cancel the WG calls during the LC phase so we can focus on the test suite and implementations
15:51:14 <scor_> ... any objections?
15:51:14 <scor_> No objections noted.
15:51:29 <scor_> ... we can do most of the work via the mailing list