13:46:21 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 13:46:21 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/03/24-rdfa-irc 13:46:28 rrsagent, set log public 13:55:29 manu has joined #rdfa 13:55:53 manu has changed the topic to: Ad-hoc meeting to discuss: http://doodle.com/uqe9pxru7eu8n7d8 (manu) 13:56:08 hrm, Mark still hasn't replied... 14:00:34 ouch 14:00:45 well, we can have our conversation:-) 14:00:59 you are gathering opinions anyway... 14:01:08 yes, true... 14:01:12 just ping me when you are ready 14:01:17 I'm ready... 14:01:31 should I create an ad-hoc zakim channel now? 14:01:39 we have two options. 14:01:55 we can try to have the telecon at 12pm 14:02:08 or I can gather your opinions now and then have a separate telecon with Mark. 14:02:28 I know that I am at fault here, sorry about that, but 12pm is a bit awkward for me indeed 14:02:32 up to you - if you think 12pm would be pushing it, let's have the telecon now. 14:02:38 ok, let's do the telecon now, then. 14:02:50 so, watch what is happening on irc:-) 14:03:04 zakim, room for 3 for 90 minutes? 14:03:05 ok, ivan; conference Team_(rdfa)14:03Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 90 minutes until 1533Z 14:03:11 that is it:-) 14:03:15 this is ralph magic:-) 14:03:22 zakim, dial ivan-voip 14:03:22 ok, ivan; the call is being made 14:03:23 Team_(rdfa)14:03Z has now started 14:03:24 +Ivan 14:03:29 zakim, code? 14:03:29 the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), manu 14:03:53 I am in, waiting for you... 14:04:04 +??P3 14:04:13 zakim, I am ??P3 14:04:13 +manu; got it 14:06:50 scribenick: manu 14:07:05 Ivan: So, let's get started - let me try to summarize things the way I see it. 14:07:14 Manu: ok 14:07:21 Ivan: Had a brief chat with Ralph about this stuff... 14:07:59 Ivan: I must admit, I need to understand @vocab/@map/@token . 14:08:15 Ivan: Couple of things that are no-brainers for me - things that we need in RDFa 1.1 14:08:19 Ivan: We need an alternative to xmlns: 14:08:33 Ivan: maybe @vocab attribute or something like that - we have to have that. 14:08:54 Ivan: Default prefix for keywords - simple and works well for simple cases - very obvious. 14:09:34 Ivan: There is some disagreement on @profile file stuff. 14:10:00 Ivan: There is the issue whether what is pulled in is essentially RDF in some encoding, which produces triples that are used in the author document - the RDFa Vocabulary proposal. 14:10:35 Ivan: The other disagreement, I don't understand, context-specific interpretation of RDFa attributes via @token - scares the hell out of me... sounds complicated. 14:10:58 Ivan: extra difficulties for tool providers... don't understand what it buys us. 14:13:11 Manu: This is part of Mark's @token proposal 14:13:47 Ivan: Very ugly architecturally, it hides data, tool providers will have to have two different ways to parse an RDFa file - very very confusing. 14:14:28 Ivan: One more argument in favor of cleaner RDFa usage - it's true that at the moment, this may look like it's more complicated, however, what this also gives us is a general mechanism that can be re-used in a future version of RDFa. 14:14:50 Ivan: This allows us to add additional things later on - two examples. 14:15:08 Ivan: My example is on whether or not we want to restrict keywords to specific attributes. 14:15:39 Ivan: If we want to have such a restriction - I don't think we want to do that, but if we do - it's a trivial extension - rdfa:relrev 14:15:45 Ivan: This next one comes from Ralph 14:16:20 [ 14:16:22 Ivan: If we have in the future, we can have profiles like this: 14:16:34 rdfa:uri "blablab" 14:16:44 rdfa:alias "b" 14:16:59 a owl:Ontology ; 14:17:15 isatURI "balblab" 14:17:23 has .... 14:17:24 ] 14:19:04 Manu: Mark's position is that this is too complicated - why not just token="keyword: mapping; keyword: mapping;"? 14:19:08 [ rdfa:uri "bbb"; rdf:alias "b" } 14:19:13 s/}/]/ 14:19:49 { "uri" : "bbbb", "alias" : "b" } 14:19:50 Manu: he thinks we need it eventually , but the simpler solution is @token righ tnow 14:21:53 Manu: Mark's point is that we're going to use text/html + rdfa... 14:22:12 Manu: Are the people that are going to create RDFa Profiles going to have the technical knowledge to use this mechanism? 14:22:25 Ivan: There are far more people that will /use/ RDFa Profiles than /create/ RDFa Profiles. 14:22:37 Ivan: We are optimizing on the users of those profiles, not the authors of the profiles. 14:23:07 Ivan: we are not optimizing on the profile authors. 14:23:28 Ivan: @token is much more complicated than this because of it switching context. 14:26:45 Manu: Yes, but Mark does have a point @token is simpler to use syntactically. 14:27:01 Ivan: Yes, but it makes interpretation of it and the mental model very confusing. 14:27:22 Ivan: We are saying via the @token proposal, that it's okay to interpret a document in two completely different ways. 14:27:45 Ivan: RDFa Vocabulary syntax is slightly more complicated, BUT it's an open-ended upgrade mechanism. 14:28:17 Topic: Are collapsing prefixes/keywords into a single concept. 14:29:03 Ivan: It is correct that the collapse of keywords and prefixes is consistent - that's right, it's perfectly consistent. 14:29:15 Ivan: If we did it today from scratch, I would agree with it. 14:30:03 Ivan: The problem is, and I agree with Ben, that we have already developed a mental model for RDFa 1.0 - we have written Primers and Tutorials with a conceptual separation of prefixes and keywords, if we want to do what Mark is saying, we have to do a decent amount of work to make it clean. 14:30:20 Ivan: This is not the way we presented CURIEs, this is not the way we presented in the Primer, 14:30:56 Ivan: I accept that it is proper and clean, but I'm not sure that this is something that is worth it... we don't really need the collapse. 14:31:10 Ivan: We can do all of this other stuff by not collapsing the concepts. 14:31:27 Ivan: it doesn't buy us too much... now that I say that, 14:31:49 Ivan: If we want to put extra restrictions on how certain keywords can be used, collapsing doesn't really work well anymore. 14:32:21 Ivan: it would be reasonable to say that keywords are classes - keywords can be used only in @typeof/@rel/@rev - it would be a reasonable restriction. 14:32:56 Ivan: it makes sense to have such restrictions... I don't feel very strongly about the restrictions, but let's not throw that out just yet. 14:33:41 Manu: So, Ben said that he is very much against defining prefixes in RDFa Profile Documents. 14:36:12 Manu: *explains ben's position* 14:36:49 Ivan: I know there is this worry that RDFa 1.0 processors might process RDFa 1.1 documents - bottom line, @profile everywhere is not allowed in HTML5 or XHTML. 14:37:02 Ivan: The "process invalid documents" argument doesn't resonate for me. 14:37:18 Ivan: As for the second argument, what does it buy me by knowing where a @prefix is coming from? 14:39:13 Ivan: If it comes from an RDFa profile document, and I can't dereference @profile, we can use warnings to state that the prefix may be invalid. 14:39:20 Ivan: What does it buy me to know where the prefix comes from? 14:40:55 Ivan: Authors can create situations where they shoot themselves in the foot - but this has always been a usability issue for a long time. 14:41:25 Ivan: Allowing prefixes to be defined in RDFa Profile documents allows authors to not make xmlns: declaration errors. 14:42:10 Ivan: If I want an RDFa Profile to use foaf and dc, and I don't want my authors to deal with too many difficulties, I could create a whole bunch of keywords - 100 different keywords, or I could just specify two prefixes. 14:42:26 Ivan: Not allowing prefixes ensures that the RDFa Profile mechanism doesn't scale. 14:42:49 Ivan: let's not forget that there are people out there that have no problem using LOTS of prefixes... we want to address their needs as well. 14:43:20 Ivan: I know my example is a bit extreme, 15 prefixes... but others may do this too. 14:44:53 Manu: What about "The Default RDFa Profile"? 14:45:15 Ivan: less of a strong argument for me - I would include RDF RDFS SKOS OWL 14:46:19 Ivan: Perhaps RDFa - that is a big social issue - what to add, what not to add - W3C would make selections - which is bad 14:46:31 Ivan: I don't think it's a strong argument, not fully sure that we should go there. 14:48:23 Ivan: I am still of the opinion that using RDFa vocabulary to define RDFa Profile document is the way to go - feel very strongly about that. 14:48:55 Ivan: Having a default prefix mechanism is good - I am in favor of that. 14:49:11 Ivan: I am dead against bringing RDF Schema into the picture - really don't want to see that. 14:49:33 Ivan: We would shoot ourselves in the foot if we started to do something like that. 14:50:44 Ivan: Having an error reporting mechanism in RDFa Processor would be important. 15:06:13 -manu 15:06:19 zakim, drop me 15:06:19 Ivan is being disconnected 15:06:21 Team_(rdfa)14:03Z has ended 15:06:21 Attendees were Ivan, manu 15:06:25 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:06:25 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/03/24-rdfa-minutes.html manu 15:06:30 rrsagent, make logs public 15:20:07 zakim, bye 15:20:07 Zakim has left #rdfa 15:20:12 rrsagent bye 15:20:14 rrsagent, bye 15:20:14 I see no action items 15:47:01 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 15:47:01 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/03/24-rdfa-irc 16:53:46 rrsagent, bye 16:53:48 zakim, bye 16:53:48 Zakim has left #rdfa 16:53:57 rrsagent, make logs public 16:54:00 rrsagent, bye 16:54:00 I see no action items