IRC log of rdfa on 2010-06-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:52:51 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #rdfa

13:52:51 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-rdfa-irc

13:52:58 [manu_]

trackbot, prepare telecon

13:53:00 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs world

13:53:02 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be 7332

13:53:02 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes

13:53:03 [trackbot]

Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference

13:53:03 [trackbot]

Date: 03 June 2010

13:53:09 [manu_]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jun/0007.html

13:53:13 [manu_]

Chair: Manu

13:53:22 [manu_]

Present: Steven, Ivan, Benjamin, Manu

13:53:24 [manu_]

Regrets: Ben

13:59:00 [ivan]

zakim, dial ivan-voip

13:59:12 [Zakim]

ok, ivan; the call is being made

13:59:20 [Zakim]

SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started

13:59:24 [Zakim]

+Ivan

13:59:52 [Zakim]

+ +49.630.138.9.aaaa

14:00:08 [Benjamin]

zakim aaaa is Benjamin

14:00:31 [Zakim]

+McCarron

14:00:49 [manu_]

zakim, I am IPCaller

14:01:03 [Zakim]

+??P2

14:01:05 [ShaneM]

ShaneM has joined #rdfa

14:01:28 [ShaneM]

zakim, who is here

14:01:33 [Zakim]

sorry, manu_, I do not see a party named 'IPCaller'

14:01:37 [ShaneM]

zakim. who is here?

14:01:42 [ivan]

zakim, ??P2 is manu

14:02:08 [Zakim]

ShaneM, you need to end that query with '?'

14:02:20 [Steven]

My current call is overrunning; on my way shortly

14:02:26 [Benjamin]

zakim, aaaa is Benjamin

14:02:30 [manu_]

Zakim, I am ??P2

14:02:31 [Zakim]

+manu; got it

14:02:51 [Zakim]

+Benjamin; got it

14:02:55 [Zakim]

sorry, manu_, I do not see a party named '??P2'

14:03:12 [ivan]

zakim, who is here?

14:03:12 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Ivan, Benjamin, McCarron, manu

14:03:13 [Zakim]

On IRC I see ShaneM, RRSAgent, trackbot, Zakim, Benjamin, manu_, Steven, tinkster1, csarven, ivan

14:04:18 [markbirbeck]

markbirbeck has joined #rdfa

14:05:14 [ShaneM]

Zakim, McCarron is ShaneM

14:05:14 [Zakim]

+ShaneM; got it

14:05:50 [markbirbeck]

zakim, code?

14:05:54 [Zakim]

the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), markbirbeck

14:06:18 [Zakim]

+ +0785583aabb

14:06:39 [tinkster]

tinkster has joined #rdfa

14:07:07 [Zakim]

+ +0208761aacc

14:07:17 [markbirbeck]

zakim, i am aacc

14:07:17 [Zakim]

+markbirbeck; got it

14:07:23 [ivan]

zakim, aabb is tinkster

14:07:23 [Zakim]

+tinkster; got it

14:07:58 [ivan]

scribenick: markbirbeck

14:09:33 [markbirbeck]

TOPIC: RDFa DOM API

14:09:35 [Benjamin]

zakim, mute me

14:09:36 [manu_]

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-dom-api/

14:09:37 [Zakim]

Benjamin should now be muted

14:09:48 [markbirbeck]

Manu: I think we're pretty much ready for FPWD.

14:10:00 [manu_]

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-dom-api/#dom-node-filters

14:10:14 [markbirbeck]

...There are some potential changes that have been discussed on the mailing-list.

14:10:41 [markbirbeck]

...Consensus seems to be that we can get rid of this interface entirely.

14:11:13 [markbirbeck]

...The containsRdfa() is a little more contentious -- I haven't heard back from Benjamin yet.

14:11:40 [markbirbeck]

...The argument for removing it is that documents contain RDFa simply by having a stylesheet, so this method doesn't help us much.

14:12:14 [Benjamin]

zakim, unmute me

14:12:14 [Zakim]

Benjamin should no longer be muted

14:12:18 [markbirbeck]

...Counter-argument is that it allows you to test for the presence of items with a query.

14:12:19 [Benjamin]

q+

14:12:24 [manu_]

ack Benjamin

14:12:46 [markbirbeck]

Benjamin: Happy to see them removed.

14:13:58 [markbirbeck]

Mark: In my implementation I use ask() which is based on SPARQL's 'ASK'.

14:14:14 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Would also like to see a count of number of triples in the store.

14:14:16 [Benjamin]

zakim, mute me

14:14:16 [Zakim]

Benjamin should now be muted

14:14:23 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Pretty sure we have this.

14:14:34 [ivan]

q+

14:14:39 [manu_]

ack ivan

14:14:44 [markbirbeck]

...Can remove these things before FPWD.

14:14:49 [markbirbeck]

...Anything else?

14:14:58 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Have two questions.

14:15:11 [markbirbeck]

...RDFTriple interface has a strange FORTRAN feel to it.

14:15:14 [Steven]

zakim, dial steven-work

14:15:14 [Zakim]

ok, Steven; the call is being made

14:15:15 [Zakim]

+Steven

14:15:54 [markbirbeck]

...Any reason for not going direct to subject/predicate/object properties?

14:16:22 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Originally had a tuple method way of accessing, but we probably don't need this any longer.

14:16:24 [Benjamin]

zakim, unmute me

14:16:24 [Zakim]

Benjamin should no longer be muted

14:16:31 [markbirbeck]

...Benjamin, do you have any thoughts on this?

14:17:06 [markbirbeck]

Benjamin: We did this to support list comprehensions. But then we found out that we can't do them.

14:17:15 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Propose that we nuke those as well.

14:17:23 [Benjamin]

zakim, mute me

14:17:23 [Zakim]

Benjamin should now be muted

14:17:30 [Benjamin]

+1

14:17:54 [ShaneM]

zakim, who is noisy?

14:18:05 [Zakim]

ShaneM, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: manu (38%), markbirbeck (4%)

14:18:12 [manu_]

PROPOSAL: Remove 'rdfa' interface for RDFa DOM API FPWD including 'getElements()' and 'containsRDFa()'

14:18:21 [ivan]

+1

14:18:22 [manu_]

PROPOSAL: Remove 'rdfa' interface from RDFa DOM API FPWD including 'getElements()' and 'containsRDFa()'

14:18:32 [manu_]

+1

14:18:35 [Benjamin]

+1

14:18:40 [tinkster]

+1

14:18:42 [markbirbeck]

+1

14:18:52 [ShaneM]

+1

14:18:53 [Steven]

No opinion

14:19:04 [manu_]

RESOLVED: Remove 'rdfa' interface from RDFa DOM API FPWD including 'getElements()' and 'containsRDFa()'

14:20:02 [manu_]

PROPOSAL: Remove indexed getter methods from RDF Triple interface for RDFa DOM API FPWD.

14:20:03 [ivan]

+1

14:20:04 [tinkster]

+1

14:20:09 [manu_]

+1

14:20:10 [ShaneM]

+1

14:20:16 [Benjamin]

+1

14:20:30 [Steven]

=0

14:20:31 [markbirbeck]

+1

14:20:53 [manu_]

RESOLVED: Remove indexed getter methods from RDF Triple interface for RDFa DOM API FPWD.

14:21:22 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Also would like to bring up the question of the parser interface that was discussed on the list.

14:21:39 [manu_]

q+

14:21:53 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Like the proposal on the list.

14:22:13 [manu_]

ack manu_

14:23:44 [ivan]

q+

14:23:55 [manu_]

ack ivan

14:24:01 [markbirbeck]

Mark: What about removing parse.iterate()?

14:24:24 [manu_]

q+

14:24:25 [tinkster]

ivan++

14:24:31 [manu_]

ack manu_

14:24:36 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Agree with this, but would prefer to issue with a note, and leave this until next time.

14:26:40 [ivan]

q+

14:26:45 [manu_]

ack ivan

14:27:19 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Feel uneasy changing it.

14:27:55 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: People implementing should know that it's an FPWD.

14:27:57 [markbirbeck]

q+

14:28:04 [manu_]

ack markbirbeck

14:29:48 [Benjamin]

zakim, unmute me

14:29:48 [Zakim]

Benjamin should no longer be muted

14:29:52 [Benjamin]

q+

14:30:02 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Just looking to see how easy it would be to take this out.

14:30:33 [markbirbeck]

Benjamin: What are we talking about removing? The TripleIterator?

14:30:52 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Yes, it's what used to be the TripleIterator....it's the DataIterator.

14:32:17 [Benjamin]

zakim, mute me

14:32:17 [Zakim]

Benjamin should now be muted

14:33:12 [manu_]

PROPOSAL: Add notes to RDFa DOM API FPWD that make it clear that the .iterate() method is a feature that will almost certainly change.

14:33:14 [markbirbeck]

Manu: There are 18 places where this is referenced, so would be too much work to change now.

14:33:27 [ivan]

+1

14:33:31 [manu_]

+1

14:33:32 [tinkster]

+1

14:33:35 [markbirbeck]

Mark: Can live with this, provided that there is a clear note.

14:33:37 [markbirbeck]

+1

14:33:43 [Benjamin]

0

14:33:45 [Steven]

OK

14:33:55 [Benjamin]

zakim, unmute me

14:33:55 [Zakim]

Benjamin should no longer be muted

14:34:10 [ShaneM]

+0

14:34:30 [markbirbeck]

Benjamin: Didn't really understand the criticism of the interface, so would prefer to see further discussion.

14:34:40 [Benjamin]

zakim, mute me

14:34:40 [Zakim]

Benjamin should now be muted

14:38:31 [markbirbeck]

Mark: One last question relates to the removal of '?' from the select() method. Is this a typo?

14:38:44 [markbirbeck]

Manu: No. The query is now separate from the results template.

14:39:01 [manu_]

PROPOSAL: Publish the current RDFa DOM API document, including the changes RESOLVED on the telecon today, as a FPWD.

14:39:04 [markbirbeck]

Mark: Ah...will propose that we revert after FPWD. :)

14:39:04 [ShaneM]

+1

14:39:09 [tinkster]

+1

14:39:11 [markbirbeck]

+1

14:39:11 [ivan]

+1

14:39:11 [Steven]

+1

14:39:16 [Benjamin]

+1

14:39:19 [manu_]

+1

14:39:26 [ivan]

clap clap clap

14:39:33 [markbirbeck]

Excellent work guys.

14:39:52 [manu_]

RESOLVED: Publish the current RDFa DOM API document, including the changes RESOLVED on the telecon today, as a FPWD.

14:40:05 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Should the short name be 'rdfa-dom-api'?

14:40:12 [tinkster]

or "rdfa-api"?

14:40:14 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Support that and we should propose it.

14:41:10 [manu_]

PROPOSAL: The short-name for the RDFa DOM API should be "rdfa-api"

14:41:13 [Steven]

+1

14:41:14 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Would anyone prefer having 'dom' in there?

14:41:15 [tinkster]

+1

14:41:17 [Benjamin]

+1

14:41:20 [manu_]

+1

14:41:20 [ivan]

+1

14:41:27 [markbirbeck]

+1

14:42:00 [manu_]

PROPOSAL: The title for the RDFa DOM API document should be changed from "RDFa DOM API 1.1" to "RDFa API 1.1"

14:42:06 [tinkster]

+0.5

14:42:06 [manu_]

RESOLVED: The short-name for the RDFa DOM API should be "rdfa-api"

14:42:14 [Benjamin]

+1

14:42:18 [ivan]

+1

14:42:19 [markbirbeck]

Shouldn't it be "RDFa 1.1 API"?

14:42:32 [markbirbeck]

-1

14:42:33 [markbirbeck]

:)

14:44:04 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Does the title always need to contain a version number at the end?

14:44:07 [markbirbeck]

Shane: No.

14:44:17 [markbirbeck]

...Does the spec have a dependency on RDFa 1.1?

14:44:23 [ShaneM]

I like rdfa-api for a short name...

14:44:59 [manu_]

PROPOSAL: The title for the RDFa DOM API document should be changed from "RDFa DOM API 1.1" to "RDFa API"

14:45:03 [manu_]

+1

14:45:07 [ivan]

+1

14:45:15 [Benjamin]

+1

14:45:15 [markbirbeck]

+1

14:45:20 [tinkster]

+1

14:45:32 [ShaneM]

+1

14:45:39 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Would you like to add my diagram?

14:45:40 [markbirbeck]

q+

14:46:40 [ShaneM]

I'm not excited about introducing the diagram right now

14:46:53 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Time constraints say not.

14:46:59 [Benjamin]

no it was an old one

14:47:03 [Steven]

+1

14:47:05 [Benjamin]

zakim, unmute me

14:47:05 [Zakim]

Benjamin should no longer be muted

14:47:08 [markbirbeck]

Mark: Nice diagram, but would prefer that it was a proper UML one.

14:47:27 [manu_]

RESOLVED: The title for the RDFa DOM API document should be changed from "RDFa DOM API 1.1" to "RDFa API"

14:47:28 [Benjamin]

zakim, mute me

14:47:28 [Zakim]

Benjamin should now be muted

14:49:04 [markbirbeck]

TOPIC: ISSUE-23 @profile order

14:49:31 [markbirbeck]

Manu: We delayed the vote to give me time to respond.

14:49:45 [markbirbeck]

...Mark argued that it was up to the language to choose the processing order.

14:50:01 [markbirbeck]

...However, the languages we have do 'last takes priority'.

14:50:03 [markbirbeck]

q+

14:50:11 [manu_]

ack benjamin

14:50:18 [manu_]

ack markbirbeck

14:52:10 [manu_]

zakim, mute benjamin

14:52:10 [Zakim]

Benjamin should now be muted

14:52:23 [domel]

domel has joined #rdfa

14:53:32 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Microformats usage has more weight.

14:53:56 [markbirbeck]

Manu: How should we word this? Does the left-most take precedence, or are they processed in reverse order?

14:53:59 [manu_]

PROPOSAL: When two profiles in the same @profile attribute contradict, the left-most declaration takes precedence.

14:54:05 [manu_]

+0

14:54:08 [markbirbeck]

Toby: Precedence is better.

14:54:11 [tinkster]

+1

14:54:18 [Benjamin]

+1

14:54:22 [markbirbeck]

+1

14:54:33 [Steven]

+0

14:54:36 [markbirbeck]

Shane: Should this go in the processing rules or in the definition of the attribute?

14:54:38 [ivan]

+1

14:54:52 [markbirbeck]

Toby: It's already in there now but with the wrong wording.

14:55:01 [markbirbeck]

Shane: No it's not.

14:55:05 [markbirbeck]

Toby: Yes it is.

14:55:12 [markbirbeck]

Shane: No it's not.

14:55:18 [markbirbeck]

Toby: Yes it is.

14:55:35 [manu_]

RESOLVED: When two profiles in the same @profile attribute contradict, the left-most declaration takes precedence.

14:56:08 [markbirbeck]

TOPIC: Error reporting

14:56:17 [markbirbeck]

Moved to next telecon.

14:56:20 [manu_]

http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/specs/source/json-ld/

14:56:23 [markbirbeck]

TOPIC: JSON-LD

14:56:36 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Originates from Mark's RDFj work.

14:56:41 [markbirbeck]

(Thanks. :) )

14:57:20 [markbirbeck]

....Uses RDFa's concept of a 'context' so that CURIEs can be used in JSON.

14:58:17 [markbirbeck]

...Discussed with various groups and there is a lot of interest.

14:58:28 [markbirbeck]

...Dovetails with RDFa API.

14:58:40 [markbirbeck]

(Jason LD...sounds like a rapper.)

14:58:45 [ivan]

q+

14:58:53 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Comments?

14:59:14 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: We have an RDF Next Steps workshop in a few weeks.

14:59:34 [markbirbeck]

...One of the topics is a JSON serialisation.

15:00:07 [ShaneM]

What do people think of:

15:00:07 [ShaneM]

<p>If any conflict arises between two RDFa Profiles associated with URIs in the <aref>profile</aref> value, the declaration from the RDFa Profile associated with the left-most URI takes precedence.</p> ?

15:02:18 [Zakim]

-tinkster

15:07:22 [ivan]

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF/NextStepWorkshop

15:07:44 [Steven]

bye

15:07:45 [Zakim]

-ShaneM

15:08:00 [manu_]

zakim, who is making noise?

15:08:10 [Zakim]

manu_, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: markbirbeck (48%)

15:08:19 [Zakim]

-Steven

15:08:34 [Benjamin]

bye

15:10:59 [ivan]

Benjamin, not at all!

15:11:26 [markbirbeck]

hey...that's Benjamin's first spec! ;)

15:11:35 [markbirbeck]

Congrats.

15:11:46 [ShaneM]

its not a first spec until you have been through pubs :P

15:11:55 [markbirbeck]

spoilsport

15:11:58 [manu_]

:)

15:12:01 [ShaneM]

my middle name

15:12:07 [Benjamin]

:)

15:12:13 [ShaneM]

Any opinion on this:

15:12:13 [ShaneM]

<p>If any conflict arises between two RDFa Profiles associated with URIs in the <aref>profile</aref> value, the declaration from the RDFa Profile associated with the left-most URI takes precedence.</p>

15:13:47 [ivan]

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-rdf-based-semantics/

15:14:11 [Zakim]

-Benjamin

15:20:12 [Zakim]

-manu

15:21:05 [Zakim]

-Ivan

15:21:13 [markbirbeck]

Can someone make the minutes?

15:21:20 [markbirbeck]

Steven? Manu?

15:22:21 [ShaneM]

rrsagent, make minutes public

15:22:21 [RRSAgent]

I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', ShaneM. Try /msg RRSAgent help

15:22:30 [ShaneM]

rrsagent, make minutes

15:22:30 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-rdfa-minutes.html ShaneM

15:22:57 [markbirbeck]

Ah...I thought it was "make minutes" but I was going to ask Zakim to do it. :)

15:26:05 [Zakim]

disconnecting the lone participant, markbirbeck, in SW_RDFa()10:00AM

15:26:07 [Zakim]

SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended

15:26:09 [Zakim]

Attendees were Ivan, +49.630.138.9.aaaa, manu, Benjamin, ShaneM, +0785583aabb, +0208761aacc, markbirbeck, tinkster, Steven

15:48:02 [manu_]

bye zakim

15:48:06 [manu_]

bye trackbot

15:48:09 [manu_]

zakim, bye

15:48:09 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #rdfa

15:48:11 [manu_]

trackbot, bye

15:48:11 [trackbot]

trackbot has left #rdfa

15:48:14 [manu_]

rrsagent, bye

15:48:14 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items