See also: IRC log
<manu_> trackbot, prepare telecon
<trackbot> Date: 03 June 2010
<Benjamin> zakim aaaa is Benjamin
<ShaneM> zakim. who is here?
<Steven> My current call is overrunning; on my way shortly
<ivan> scribenick: markbirbeck
<manu_> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-dom-api/
Manu: I think we're pretty much ready for FPWD.
<manu_> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-dom-api/#dom-node-filters
Manu: There are some potential
changes that have been discussed on the mailing-list.
... Consensus seems to be that we can get rid of this interface
entirely.
... The containsRdfa() is a little more contentious -- I
haven't heard back from Benjamin yet.
... The argument for removing it is that documents contain RDFa
simply by having a stylesheet, so this method doesn't help us
much.
... Counter-argument is that it allows you to test for the
presence of items with a query.
Benjamin: Happy to see them removed.
Mark: In my implementation I use ask() which is based on SPARQL's 'ASK'.
Ivan: Would also like to see a count of number of triples in the store.
Manu: Pretty sure we have
this.
... Can remove these things before FPWD.
... Anything else?
Ivan: Have two questions.
... RDFTriple interface has a strange FORTRAN feel to it.
... Any reason for not going direct to subject/predicate/object
properties?
Manu: Originally had a tuple
method way of accessing, but we probably don't need this any
longer.
... Benjamin, do you have any thoughts on this?
Benjamin: We did this to support list comprehensions. But then we found out that we can't do them.
Ivan: Propose that we nuke those as well.
<Benjamin> +1
<manu_> PROPOSAL: Remove 'rdfa' interface for RDFa DOM API FPWD including 'getElements()' and 'containsRDFa()'
<ivan> +1
<manu_> PROPOSAL: Remove 'rdfa' interface from RDFa DOM API FPWD including 'getElements()' and 'containsRDFa()'
<manu_> +1
<Benjamin> +1
<tinkster> +1
+1
<ShaneM> +1
<Steven> No opinion
<manu_> RESOLVED: Remove 'rdfa' interface from RDFa DOM API FPWD including 'getElements()' and 'containsRDFa()'
<manu_> PROPOSAL: Remove indexed getter methods from RDF Triple interface for RDFa DOM API FPWD.
<ivan> +1
<tinkster> +1
<manu_> +1
<ShaneM> +1
<Benjamin> +1
<Steven> =0
+1
<manu_> RESOLVED: Remove indexed getter methods from RDF Triple interface for RDFa DOM API FPWD.
Ivan: Also would like to bring up the question of the parser interface that was discussed on the list.
Manu: Like the proposal on the list.
Mark: What about removing parse.iterate()?
<tinkster> ivan++
Ivan: Agree with this, but would prefer to issue with a note, and leave this until next time.
Manu: Feel uneasy changing it.
Ivan: People implementing should know that it's an FPWD.
Manu: Just looking to see how easy it would be to take this out.
Benjamin: What are we talking about removing? The TripleIterator?
Manu: Yes, it's what used to be the TripleIterator....it's the DataIterator.
<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.
Manu: There are 18 places where this is referenced, so would be too much work to change now.
<ivan> +1
<manu_> +1
<tinkster> +1
Mark: Can live with this, provided that there is a clear note.
+1
<Benjamin> 0
<Steven> OK
<ShaneM> +0
Benjamin: Didn't really understand the criticism of the interface, so would prefer to see further discussion.
Mark: One last question relates to the removal of '?' from the select() method. Is this a typo?
Manu: No. The query is now separate from the results template.
<manu_> PROPOSAL: Publish the current RDFa DOM API document, including the changes RESOLVED on the telecon today, as a FPWD.
Mark: Ah...will propose that we revert after FPWD. :)
<ShaneM> +1
<tinkster> +1
+1
<ivan> +1
<Steven> +1
<Benjamin> +1
<manu_> +1
<ivan> clap clap clap
Excellent work guys.
<manu_> RESOLVED: Publish the current RDFa DOM API document, including the changes RESOLVED on the telecon today, as a FPWD.
Manu: Should the short name be 'rdfa-dom-api'?
<tinkster> or "rdfa-api"?
Ivan: Support that and we should propose it.
<manu_> PROPOSAL: The short-name for the RDFa DOM API should be "rdfa-api"
<Steven> +1
Manu: Would anyone prefer having 'dom' in there?
<tinkster> +1
<Benjamin> +1
<manu_> +1
<ivan> +1
+1
<manu_> PROPOSAL: The title for the RDFa DOM API document should be changed from "RDFa DOM API 1.1" to "RDFa API 1.1"
<tinkster> +0.5
<manu_> RESOLVED: The short-name for the RDFa DOM API should be "rdfa-api"
<Benjamin> +1
<ivan> +1
Shouldn't it be "RDFa 1.1 API"?
-1
:)
Manu: Does the title always need to contain a version number at the end?
Shane: No.
... Does the spec have a dependency on RDFa 1.1?
<ShaneM> I like rdfa-api for a short name...
<manu_> PROPOSAL: The title for the RDFa DOM API document should be changed from "RDFa DOM API 1.1" to "RDFa API"
<manu_> +1
<ivan> +1
<Benjamin> +1
+1
<tinkster> +1
<ShaneM> +1
Ivan: Would you like to add my diagram?
<ShaneM> I'm not excited about introducing the diagram right now
Manu: Time constraints say not.
<Benjamin> no it was an old one
<Steven> +1
Mark: Nice diagram, but would prefer that it was a proper UML one.
<manu_> RESOLVED: The title for the RDFa DOM API document should be changed from "RDFa DOM API 1.1" to "RDFa API"
Manu: We delayed the vote to give
me time to respond.
... Mark argued that it was up to the language to choose the
processing order.
... However, the languages we have do 'last takes
priority'.
Ivan: Microformats usage has more weight.
Manu: How should we word this? Does the left-most take precedence, or are they processed in reverse order?
<manu_> PROPOSAL: When two profiles in the same @profile attribute contradict, the left-most declaration takes precedence.
<manu_> +0
Toby: Precedence is better.
<tinkster> +1
<Benjamin> +1
+1
<Steven> +0
Shane: Should this go in the processing rules or in the definition of the attribute?
<ivan> +1
Toby: It's already in there now but with the wrong wording.
Shane: No it's not.
Toby: Yes it is.
Shane: No it's not.
Toby: Yes it is.
<manu_> RESOLVED: When two profiles in the same @profile attribute contradict, the left-most declaration takes precedence.
Moved to next telecon.
<manu_> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/specs/source/json-ld/
Manu: Originates from Mark's RDFj work.
(Thanks. :) )
scribe: Uses RDFa's concept of a
'context' so that CURIEs can be used in JSON.
... Discussed with various groups and there is a lot of
interest.
... Dovetails with RDFa API.
(Jason LD...sounds like a rapper.)
Manu: Comments?
Ivan: We have an RDF Next Steps
workshop in a few weeks.
... One of the topics is a JSON serialisation.
<ShaneM> What do people think of:
<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> ?
<ivan> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF/NextStepWorkshop
<Steven> bye
<Benjamin> bye
<ivan> Benjamin, not at all!
hey...that's Benjamin's first spec! ;)
Congrats.
<ShaneM> its not a first spec until you have been through pubs :P
spoilsport
<manu_> :)
<ShaneM> my middle name
<Benjamin> :)
<ShaneM> Any opinion on this:
<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>
<ivan> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-rdf-based-semantics/
Can someone make the minutes?
Steven? Manu?
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found ScribeNick: markbirbeck Inferring Scribes: markbirbeck Present: Steven Ivan Benjamin Manu Regrets: Ben Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jun/0007.html Found Date: 03 Jun 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/06/03-rdfa-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]