Chatlog 2012-03-01

From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

14:51:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:51:57 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:51:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:51:59 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:52:00 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
14:52:00 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
14:52:01 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
14:52:02 <trackbot> Date: 01 March 2012
14:56:27 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
14:59:19 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:59:21 <Zakim> +??P3
14:59:26 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P3
14:59:26 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
15:00:23 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdfa
15:01:09 <Zakim> +??P6
15:01:10 <Zakim> -??P6
15:01:10 <Zakim> +??P6
15:01:12 <Zakim> +??P8
15:01:21 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:01:21 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:01:23 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:01:27 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P6
15:01:27 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
15:01:31 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P8
15:01:31 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
15:01:46 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa
15:02:38 <Zakim> +scor
15:04:05 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:04:10 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:04:10 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:04:12 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:04:12 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:05:42 <manu1> Agenda:
15:06:52 <ShaneM> zakim, what is the code?
15:06:52 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, ShaneM
15:07:28 <Zakim> +??P20
15:07:32 <ShaneM> zakim, I am ??P20
15:07:32 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
15:07:40 <gkellogg> scribe: gkellogg
15:07:56 <gkellogg> Discussion about clojoure implementation for RDFa Processor and how functional languages work wrt. the RDFa processing algorithm. @inlist tends to be the most complicated thing.
15:08:28 <Zakim> +Steven
15:10:21 <manu1> q+ to start the telecon.
15:10:59 <gkellogg> manu: remaining issues, one we hadn't responded to
15:11:16 <gkellogg> … next, need to decide if we're taking specs to rec and publication dates.
15:11:19 <manu1> ack manu1
15:11:19 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to start the telecon.
15:11:30 <Steven> DST in two weeks time
15:11:47 <gkellogg> ivan: one update, Mike Smith answered with additional editorial comments.
15:11:49 <Steven> q+
15:12:03 <niklasl> q+
15:12:05 <gkellogg> manu: scor also asked for some additional editorial changes
15:12:30 <gkellogg> manu: we should discuss Mike Smith's suggestions.
15:12:30 <manu> Topic: RDFa Attribute Value Conformance in Host Languages
15:12:57 <gkellogg> steven: reminder that DST goes off in the US 2 weeks before Europe.
15:13:07 <manu1> ack steven
15:13:08 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:13:08 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:13:10 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:13:38 <gkellogg> ivan: minor editorial changes can be made through rec.
15:14:03 <gkellogg> niklas: had wanted to add some clarity to CURIEs and '//' (assuming it remains editorial)
15:15:42 <gkellogg> ivan: shane, can you look at proposed changes?
15:16:12 <gkellogg> shane: They're pretty trivial... Mike wants host languages to be able to specify what is conforming in an attribute value.
15:16:37 <gkellogg> … e.g., if a host language can disallow @typeof='', that would be a problem.
15:17:13 <gkellogg> manu: it would be a bad idea for a host language author to do that, but should we disallow it?
15:18:15 <gkellogg> … however, the certain working groups could disallow @rel and @rev, which could handicap RDFa in those languages.
15:19:01 <gkellogg> … the specific attributes that were suggested by Mike Smith wouldn't be a real issue.
15:19:48 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Host Languages are allowed to specify the valid lexical space in an elements attribute values.
15:20:56 <niklasl> q+
15:21:03 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:21:28 <gkellogg> niklasl: if authors want to support RDFa, shouldn't they need to support everything in RDFa core?
15:21:48 <gkellogg> manu: currently, the HTML5+RDFa spec says you need to implement all of RDFa Core
15:22:24 <gkellogg> … they may have a good reason _not_ to allow all attributes (e.g., @about is already used in the language)
15:22:43 <gkellogg> … doesn't affect the processor, only allows the HL to say it's invalid.
15:23:09 <gkellogg> gregg: +1
15:23:09 <manu1> +1
15:23:11 <ivan> +1
15:23:12 <ShaneM> +1
15:23:13 <MacTed> +1
15:23:18 <niklasl> +
15:23:19 <niklasl> +0
15:23:28 <scor> +1
15:23:45 <Steven> +0
15:23:45 <ShaneM>   "an empty string for the value of any RDFa attribute MUST be allowed as   conforming unless a Host Language specifically disallows the empty string   for a particular attribute"
15:23:59 <manu1> RESOLVED: Host Languages are allowed to specify the valid lexical space of an element's attribute value.
15:24:29 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-121: @id to set subject
15:24:48 <manu1> We had already resolved this: The @id attribute MUST NOT be used to identify a subject in RDFa -
15:24:53 <gkellogg> manu: using @id to set the subject.
15:25:22 <gkellogg> … sebastian thought that there was a bit of support for it
15:25:38 <Steven> -1
15:25:53 <Steven> No!
15:26:10 <ivan> no way!
15:26:14 <gkellogg> … Sebastian proposed that @id is used as a subject if @typeof is also on the same element.
15:26:22 <ivan> major backward incompatibility issue
15:26:32 <ivan>
15:26:34 <Steven> Re-last call
15:26:39 <niklasl> q+
15:26:45 <ShaneM> q+ about role
15:26:52 <gkellogg> manu: also an issue with the HTML group, as it causes existing attributes to be interpreted in different ways.
15:26:55 <ShaneM> q- about
15:26:57 <ShaneM> q- role
15:27:01 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss the role attribute
15:27:11 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:27:26 <gkellogg> niklasl: for the record, I do not want @id to be used as @about or @resource because of HTTP Range-14
15:28:07 <gkellogg> … My thought was that in certain scenarios, there could be a number of cases where @id could be similar to @about, but when looking to an implementation, it was clear it was a real problem.
15:28:19 <manu1> ack shanem
15:28:19 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss the role attribute
15:28:20 <gkellogg> manu: clear that WG does not want to support.
15:28:34 <gkellogg> shane: role spec uses the @id attribute
15:28:47 <gkellogg> … but, it doesn't set the subject for any other RDFa.
15:29:32 <gkellogg> manu: other reason to not tie @id to @typeof is so the author isn't confused between different uses.
15:29:55 <gkellogg> … however, having the role spec use it, weakens the argument.
15:29:58 <gkellogg> niklas: No, it doesn't because the role spec is talking about elements on the page, not concepts that can exist outside of the page.
15:31:28 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The Working Group reaffirms that @id MUST NOT be used to set the subject in the RDFa Core specification.
15:31:30 <gkellogg> gkellogg: +1
15:31:31 <ivan> +1
15:31:32 <niklasl> +1
15:31:33 <manu1> +1
15:31:44 <Steven> +1
15:31:51 <MacTed> +1
15:31:56 <ShaneM> +1
15:31:59 <scor> +1
15:32:02 <manu1> RESOLVED: The Working Group reaffirms that @id MUST NOT be used to set the subject in the RDFa Core specification.
15:32:03 <niklasl> (.. because that would conflate the document elements and the subject matter of the content.)
15:32:17 <manu1> Topic: Take RDFa 1.1 to Candidate Recommendation
15:32:36 <manu1> The RDFa Core 1.1 Spec:
15:32:38 <manu1> The RDFa Lite 1.1 Spec:
15:32:40 <manu1> The XHTML+RDFa 1.1 Spec:
15:33:00 <gkellogg> manu: note that there are two sets of editorial edits remaining:
15:33:13 <gkellogg> … Mike Smith's and Stephane's
15:33:20 <scor> manu1: ok
15:33:27 <gkellogg> … I'd rather make those after we're in CR to save time.
15:33:44 <scor> ShaneM: private email
15:33:54 <scor> I can send them to the mailing list
15:35:13 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Propose to the Director that RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1, and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 are ready to enter the Candidate Recommendation Phase.
15:35:37 <ivan> +1
15:35:37 <Steven> +1
15:35:37 <gkellogg> gkellogg: +1
15:35:38 <manu1> +1
15:35:39 <niklasl> +1
15:35:40 <ShaneM> +1
15:35:45 <MacTed> +1
15:35:47 <scor> +1
15:35:51 <manu1> RESOLVED: Propose to the Director that RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1, and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 are ready to enter the Candidate Recommendation Phase.
15:35:53 <gkellogg> ... Rejoicing ...
15:36:03 <ivan> q+
15:36:03 <manu1> Topic: Candidate Recommendation Exit Criteria
15:36:07 <manu1> ack ivan
15:36:28 <gkellogg> ivan: manu, I and shane have already tried to set things up to move fast.
15:36:45 <gkellogg> … telco at 9:00 eastern on monday to go over the transition.
15:37:11 <gkellogg> … this means that there is an additional process that there should be a week between transition request and publication
15:37:22 <gkellogg> … the earliest we can publish is in a week.
15:37:54 <gkellogg> … this should just be a formality. A week from Tuesday would be a good time.
15:38:34 <gkellogg> manu: for CR exit criteria, we need to decide what is required.
15:38:46 <gkellogg> … at least two interoperable implementations.
15:39:19 <gkellogg> ivan: to be more precise, we need to impls that pass every test in the suite, or for each suite, there must be at least two interoperable implementations.
15:39:38 <gkellogg> manu: do we feel we can meet it?
15:39:57 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:39:57 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:40:10 <gkellogg> ivan: my intention is to be fully green.
15:40:44 <manu1> Gregg: My implementation is all green right now... 
15:40:58 <manu1> q+ to specify which test suite we mean.
15:41:20 <gkellogg> ivan: question is what constitutes exit criteria.
15:41:37 <gkellogg> manu: only test suites which are absolute criteria.
15:41:40 <gkellogg> q+
15:41:50 <manu1> ack manu1
15:41:50 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to specify which test suite we mean.
15:42:11 <manu1> ack gkellogg
15:42:32 <manu1> gkellogg: My understanding is that vocabulary expansion is optional, but if they implement it, they must pass the suite.
15:42:46 <niklasl> q+
15:42:49 <manu1> Ivan: The goal of the CR is to prove that stuff is implementable.
15:42:58 <gkellogg> ivan: goal of CR is to prove that the spec is implementable.
15:43:19 <gkellogg> … it is a strong responsibility on gkellogg and ivan if we go for stronger requirement.
15:44:08 <gkellogg> … I think that for the "official" exit criteria, I would prefer to say that each suite must be fully green with at least two versions.
15:44:19 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:44:34 <gkellogg> … my (and gkellogg's) should be able to do this, but don't want to depend on this.
15:44:55 <gkellogg> niklasl: it is dependent upon some OWL rules.
15:44:59 <gkellogg> ivan: only a limited set.
15:45:24 <gkellogg> niklasl: an implementation that includes a complete OWL implementation would be able to pass the spec.
15:46:29 <gkellogg> niklasl: Java has an OWL reasoner, which could be accessed from the Clojure implementation.
15:46:58 <gkellogg> ivan: implementation needs to make a good link between RDFa reasoner and OWL implementation.
15:47:06 <gkellogg> … I would propose that we go for weaker case.
15:49:12 <gkellogg> ivan: if we use XML and XHTML, then we are fine.
15:50:30 <manu1> gkellogg: There was one thing that was difficult to implement against each host language, but I think that was resolved.
15:50:33 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:50:33 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:52:08 <gkellogg> ivan: XML+RDFa and XHTML+RDFa are two different combinations.
15:52:28 <MacTed> four boxes: XML1+RDFa1.1, XHTML1+RDFa1.1, XML1+RDF1.1VE, XHTML1+RDFa1.1VE
15:52:48 <MacTed> each box needs 2 passing implementations
15:54:27 <gkellogg> ivan: we have about 280 tests, we're saying that each of these test must be passed by at least two implementations.
15:55:50 <gkellogg> manu: there was an issue with RDFa 1.0 where things would not pass due to XMLLiteral C14N test issues.
15:56:12 <niklasl> .. the host language isn't a factor once the basic triples have been extracted; the VE is only dependent on those triples.
15:56:25 <gkellogg> MacTed: we need at least two implementations that pass everything in each suite
15:56:26 <ShaneM> q+ to attempt to clarify
15:56:34 <ShaneM> q-
15:56:35 <manu1> ack shanem
15:56:37 <niklasl> q+
15:58:50 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The exit criteria for the RDFa 1.1 Candidate Recommendation phase will be two independent implementations that support each feature mentioned in the RDFa 1.1 Core and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 specifications.
15:58:59 <ivan> +1
15:59:02 <Steven> +1
15:59:03 <ShaneM> Note that we DO NOT have a CR exit criteria about the XHTML M12N module.  And that's fine.
15:59:04 <ShaneM> +1
15:59:05 <manu1> +1
15:59:05 <gkellogg> gkellogg: +1
15:59:06 <scor> +1
15:59:07 <niklasl> +1
15:59:09 <MacTed> +1
15:59:14 <manu1> RESOLVED: The exit criteria for the RDFa 1.1 Candidate Recommendation phase will be two independent implementations that support each feature mentioned in the RDFa 1.1 Core and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 specifications.
15:59:21 <niklasl> q-
15:59:34 <manu1> Topic: Implementations
15:59:42 <gkellogg> ivan: end of CR period is about the end of April, quite a long time.
16:00:05 <gkellogg> … this is because there is a minimal time between first public draft and PR, and RDfa 1.1 Lite came into the picture relatively late.
16:00:16 <Zakim> -ShaneM
16:00:17 <gkellogg> … I think we'll be done earlier, but this is the best time.
16:00:17 <gkellogg> Manu: We have commitments for implementations in: Python, Ruby, C, Clojure (and thus Java and possibly JavaScript), and Perl.
16:00:25 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
16:01:11 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:01:12 <Zakim> -Steven
16:01:25 <Zakim> -scor
16:01:39 <manu1> Manu: I will be updating librdfa to RDFa 1.1 (as well as the Python wrapper)
16:12:49 <niklasl> (my impl., in it's current haphazard state, passes 75% at this moment)