IRC log of rdfa on 2010-07-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:52:01 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #rdfa

13:52:01 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/07/22-rdfa-irc

13:54:16 [manu]

manu has changed the topic to: RDFa WG Telecon Agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0121.html (manu)

13:54:30 [manu]

trackbot, prepare telecon

13:54:32 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs world

13:54:34 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be 7332

13:54:34 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes

13:54:35 [trackbot]

Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference

13:54:35 [trackbot]

Date: 22 July 2010

13:54:39 [manu]

Chair: Manu

13:55:20 [manu]

Present: Ivan, Steven, Manu, Shane

13:58:57 [Zakim]

SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started

13:59:04 [Zakim]

+ +1.540.961.aaaa

13:59:10 [manu]

zakim, I am aaaa

13:59:10 [Zakim]

+manu; got it

14:00:21 [Steven]

zakim, dial steven-617

14:00:21 [Zakim]

ok, Steven; the call is being made

14:00:22 [Zakim]

+Steven

14:01:34 [ivan]

zakim, dial ivan-voip

14:01:34 [Zakim]

ok, ivan; the call is being made

14:01:35 [Zakim]

+Ivan

14:01:48 [Zakim]

+ShaneM

14:02:18 [Knud]

Knud has joined #rdfa

14:02:25 [ShaneM]

ShaneM has joined #rdfa

14:02:38 [Zakim]

+ +3539149aabb

14:03:29 [Steven]

zakim, aabb is Knud

14:03:29 [Zakim]

+Knud; got it

14:03:52 [manu]

Regrets: Toby

14:04:01 [manu]

zakim, who is on the call?

14:04:01 [Zakim]

On the phone I see manu, Steven, Ivan, ShaneM, Knud

14:04:11 [markbirbeck]

markbirbeck has joined #rdfa

14:04:40 [markbirbeck]

On my way...

14:04:46 [markbirbeck]

zakim, code?

14:04:46 [Zakim]

the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), markbirbeck

14:05:21 [markbirbeck]

Aargh..."all circuits are busy now".

14:05:56 [Steven]

Mark, did you notice new numbers?

14:05:58 [Zakim]

+??P21

14:06:05 [markbirbeck]

zakim, i am ?

14:06:05 [Zakim]

+markbirbeck; got it

14:06:39 [markbirbeck]

@Steven: Football arrived yesterday...Reuben extremely happy!

14:06:53 [manu]

Scribe: Mark

14:07:13 [markbirbeck]

TOPIC: Heartbeat working drafts by end July 2010.

14:07:20 [Steven]

s/@1,08Steven: Football arrived yesterday...Reuben extremely happy!//

14:07:35 [Steven]

rrsagent, make minutes

14:07:35 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/07/22-rdfa-minutes.html Steven

14:08:28 [markbirbeck]

Manu: We may be late on RDFa Core...need to publish every 3 months.

14:08:49 [markbirbeck]

Steven: Technically, we need to publish /something/ every 3 months, but no necessarily the same draft.

14:09:02 [Steven]

s/the same/each/

14:09:10 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Agree...according to process we're ok.

14:09:35 [markbirbeck]

Shane: We can publish RDFa Core whenever we like, it's always up-to-date.

14:09:38 [Steven]

zakim, who is on the phone?

14:09:38 [Zakim]

On the phone I see manu, Steven, Ivan, ShaneM, Knud, markbirbeck

14:09:47 [Steven]

Present+Mark

14:09:50 [Steven]

Present+Knud

14:09:51 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Not too worried about state of RDFa Core.

14:10:01 [markbirbeck]

... But we haven't done anything on the API document for a while.

14:10:17 [markbirbeck]

... Shane, could we have RDFa Core and HTML+RDFa ready to go?

14:10:26 [markbirbeck]

... And then we could discuss the API document in the next month.

14:10:32 [markbirbeck]

... Everyone ok with that?

14:10:40 [markbirbeck]

... General nodding.

14:10:52 [ivan]

q+

14:10:53 [markbirbeck]

TOPIC: ISSUE-26

14:13:10 [manu]

Mark: I'm concerned that we're creating a technology that we may not need. There are ways to do error mechanisms w/o needing an RDFa error vocabulary.

14:13:35 [markbirbeck]

s/may not need/may not be able to agree on, without using up a lot of time/

14:13:38 [manu]

Mark: So the discussion may need to go back to whether or not we need to specify the error reporting mechanism in RDFa Core.

14:14:01 [manu]

Ivan: Maybe we can keep the current formulation of processor graph and default graph.

14:14:09 [Steven]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0121

14:14:14 [Steven]

rrsagent, make minutes

14:14:14 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/07/22-rdfa-minutes.html Steven

14:14:36 [manu]

Ivan: We should not define the details of what goes into the processor graph.

14:14:41 [manu]

q+ to discuss vocabulary

14:14:45 [manu]

ack ivan

14:15:19 [manu]

Ivan: If we put this formulation into the document, maybe the community will give us feedback as to whether or not they want an error reporting mechanism.

14:15:23 [manu]

ack manu

14:15:23 [Zakim]

manu, you wanted to discuss vocabulary

14:15:30 [ShaneM]

I don't care anymore

14:16:49 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Problem is that each parser has a different mechanism for reporting errors.

14:16:49 [ivan]

q+

14:17:08 [markbirbeck]

... Would be great if Firefox's technique was the same as Ivan's Distiller.

14:17:33 [markbirbeck]

... If we think that this would be useful not just to developers but end-users, then we should go to some lengths to define these values.

14:17:58 [markbirbeck]

... We don't necessarily need to put the error vocabulary into RDFa Core, but it would be good if we did create a vocabulary.

14:18:08 [manu]

ack ivan

14:18:27 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: The problem is that realistically this is where opinions differ.

14:18:55 [markbirbeck]

... So I have my version of the vocabulary...Benjamin wants an XML literal...Mark wants something EARL-based.

14:19:10 [manu]

q+ to discuss consensus

14:19:18 [markbirbeck]

... So obtaining consensus is going to be time-consuming.

14:19:37 [markbirbeck]

... Agree with Mark that this isn't so central that it should take up so much time.

14:19:49 [manu]

ack manu

14:19:49 [Zakim]

manu, you wanted to discuss consensus

14:19:53 [markbirbeck]

... So for the time being feel that we should just leave it open for now.

14:20:08 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Not saying that this vocabulary should be discussed on the WG.

14:20:29 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Ok...happy to write that down.

14:21:20 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Seems like something that is useful and warrants guidance.

14:24:20 [ShaneM]

q+ to talk about how errors are handled in core

14:24:57 [manu]

Mark: I don't know if we need to have anything in RDFa Core about processor graphs. I think it makes sense in the RDFa API document.

14:25:01 [ivan]

ack ShaneM

14:25:01 [Zakim]

ShaneM, you wanted to talk about how errors are handled in core

14:25:05 [ivan]

q+

14:25:11 [markbirbeck]

Mark: Would prefer to not see this in there at all, because I have a general feeling that things are getting more complicated.

14:25:19 [manu]

ack ivan

14:25:34 [markbirbeck]

Shane: What do we say in the core document about processing errors?

14:25:49 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: We should retain the processor graph idea, so we only need to refer to that.

14:25:57 [markbirbeck]

... We don't need to say what the triples look like.

14:26:19 [markbirbeck]

Shane: If there is consensus on that then I'm fine.

14:26:37 [markbirbeck]

Manu: There is other language in there about how to access this graph.

14:26:50 [ShaneM]

The language is here: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#processor-status

14:29:17 [ivan]

q+

14:30:08 [markbirbeck]

Manu: It looks like section 7.6.2 is what should come out.

14:31:01 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Think that the final warning in the list shouldn't be a must.

14:31:15 [markbirbeck]

... (In the opening part of section 7.6.)

14:31:54 [ivan]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0130.html

14:32:46 [markbirbeck]

Mark: Are we saying processors MUST implement all of this?

14:33:16 [markbirbeck]

Manu: No. If you choose to implement this, then it must conform to this particularly arrangement.

14:33:18 [manu]

PROPOSAL: A general error reporting mechanism should be described by RDFa Core, but the specifics of the RDFa Error Vocabulary are out of scope for RDFa Core per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0130.html

14:33:33 [ivan]

+1

14:33:43 [manu]

+1

14:33:50 [Knud]

+1

14:33:56 [markbirbeck]

+0

14:34:05 [Steven]

+1

14:34:28 [ShaneM]

+1

14:36:14 [manu]

RESOLVED: A general error reporting mechanism should be described by RDFa Core, but the specifics of the RDFa Error Vocabulary are out of scope for RDFa Core per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0130.html

14:36:32 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Don't forget to update tracker.

14:36:41 [markbirbeck]

TOPIC: ISSUE 24

14:36:48 [Steven]

issue-26?

14:36:48 [trackbot]

ISSUE-26 -- Do we need an error reporting mechanism for RDFa? -- closed

14:36:48 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/26

14:36:52 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Shane put out a proposal in the last day or so.

14:37:03 [Steven]

issue-24?

14:37:03 [trackbot]

ISSUE-24 -- Should all terms be case-sensitive in HTML5 and XHTML? -- open

14:37:03 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/24

14:37:16 [markbirbeck]

Shane: This is actually Manu's proposal...I just provided the dextrous digits.

14:37:41 [markbirbeck]

... Upshot of the proposal is to treat all terms as being compared case-insensitively.

14:38:02 [markbirbeck]

... Solves the real problem I had which was that special-casing vocabularies seemed weird.

14:38:20 [markbirbeck]

... Comparison of terms is case-insensitive.

14:38:26 [markbirbeck]

... Languages can define terms.

14:38:45 [manu]

q+ to discuss language documents that specify terms

14:38:46 [markbirbeck]

... A profile should be declared to contain the terms, but they can be hard-coded.

14:38:48 [manu]

ack ivan

14:39:48 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Clarifications: It's not a core part of the proposal but relates to last week's discussion -- the default vocabulary goes away.

14:40:33 [markbirbeck]

Shane: Disagree. The spec says that a language can define a default vocabulary.

14:41:12 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Second thing is what to do with CURIEs that have an empty prefix.

14:41:33 [markbirbeck]

... Shane's proposal resolves this, but would like to see a note in there to say that it's not a good idea.

14:41:58 [markbirbeck]

... Final thing is to say that the set of terms in the current profile is fixed.

14:42:07 [markbirbeck]

... I.e., if we add more terms then we need a new URI.

14:42:19 [markbirbeck]

... Not sure how that will go down with HTML 5 and others.

14:42:38 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Want to make it easy for implementers to define one set of terms.

14:43:03 [markbirbeck]

... In the future HTML 5 will start adding terms, but it could take a while, so I don't think there will be an issue for a while.

14:43:49 [markbirbeck]

... So we say that this is the default document for all RDFa processors. Then in a year or two we discover that there are other terms needed, and it's not too much of an issue to just add them.

14:44:24 [ivan]

q+

14:44:27 [manu]

ack manu

14:44:27 [Zakim]

manu, you wanted to discuss language documents that specify terms

14:44:30 [markbirbeck]

... However, if we need something dynamic for HTML 5 then we could create a document that contains a profile that must be loaded.

14:46:00 [manu]

ack ivan

14:46:20 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: I'm going to get into details here...but I think we need to.

14:46:41 [markbirbeck]

... Conceptually XHTML will have its own profile document that lists the terms. Whether that's cached or not is besides the point.

14:47:15 [markbirbeck]

... What happens if I have an XHTML document that has a profile document at the top?

14:47:20 [markbirbeck]

Shane: That should override the default.

14:47:45 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Agree, but that should be made clear.

14:47:52 [markbirbeck]

Shane: Have related question.

14:48:32 [markbirbeck]

... If I load a profile on one element, and then load another in a child element, we get the result of both?

14:48:38 [markbirbeck]

General nodding.

14:48:56 [markbirbeck]

Shane: Since this is correct, then we have no way to clear the collection.

14:49:40 [markbirbeck]

... @xml:lang="" clears the language...do we want the same feature?

14:49:47 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Give me the use-case.

14:50:48 [markbirbeck]

Shane: I'm bringing in a part of a document, and I want to ensure that only the triples I want get included.

14:50:56 [markbirbeck]

... Will raise this separately.

14:51:15 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: If we're planning a new draft, we should also get the default profile document ready.

14:51:32 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Isn't that the same as the XHTML Vocab document?

14:51:38 [markbirbeck]

Shane: Yes...I'll update it.

14:51:53 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Any objections to Shane's proposal?

14:52:25 [Steven]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0122.html

14:52:41 [manu]

PROPOSAL: Adopt proposal for addressing ISSUE-24 (case-sensitive terms in HTML5) as posted to the mailing list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0122.html

14:52:52 [ivan]

+1

14:52:54 [markbirbeck]

+1

14:52:55 [manu]

+1

14:52:56 [Steven]

+1

14:52:59 [Knud]

+1

14:53:06 [manu]

RESOLVED: Adopt proposal for addressing ISSUE-24 (case-sensitive terms in HTML5) as posted to the mailing list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0122.html

14:53:10 [ShaneM]

+1

14:53:38 [markbirbeck]

TOPIC: ISSUE 3

14:53:43 [Steven]

issue-3?

14:53:43 [trackbot]

ISSUE-3 -- Updating HTML5 coercion to Infoset rules -- open

14:53:43 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/3

14:54:00 [markbirbeck]

Manu: Could either be very easy to resolve...or very difficult, depending on whether we involve the HTML Wg.

14:54:05 [markbirbeck]

s/Wg./WG./

14:55:02 [markbirbeck]

... Issue raised some time ago by Henri, when he said that if we don't coerce the document into an infoset, then people won't know how to get attribute values.

14:55:22 [markbirbeck]

... No-one had this problem, since many people had created JS parsers.

14:56:23 [markbirbeck]

... There's a proposal now that HTML 5 parsing should preserve namespace values.

14:57:17 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: It's one of those things where I understood it when you were explaining it...then it vanished.

14:57:27 [markbirbeck]

... Is this something this WG has to deal with?

14:57:36 [markbirbeck]

... And is the HTML WG prepared to look at this?

14:58:06 [markbirbeck]

Manu: If we specify it, it will make it easier to extract the XMLNS terms.

14:58:43 [markbirbeck]

... If it's rejected from HTML 5, then we have another path which is to specify it ourselves.

14:59:43 [markbirbeck]

... As to whether the HTML WG is open to this, I don't know; an issue would be whether this breaks backwards-compatibility, and to answer that we'd need to speak with browser vendors.

15:00:28 [markbirbeck]

... This is already in the spec and Henri hasn't raised any objections yet. But that may be because it's not on his (and/or Hixie's) radar.

15:00:59 [ShaneM]

q+ to suggest a path

15:01:06 [manu]

ack shanem

15:01:06 [Zakim]

ShaneM, you wanted to suggest a path

15:01:26 [markbirbeck]

... If it comes out of HTML 5 then we just do it the hard way, and look in both places for the values.

15:01:55 [markbirbeck]

Shane: Admire your passion Eran Brokevich, but we have a solution, so not sure it's worth pushing on it.

15:02:19 [markbirbeck]

... Since browsers won't know whether this breaks anything, then they could well be reluctant to make this change.

15:02:33 [markbirbeck]

... "Let it go, Manu...let it go".

15:02:44 [markbirbeck]

Manu: I think I'm going to push a bit longer.

15:03:26 [markbirbeck]

(Would like to point out that we all laughed when Manu first suggested that HTML 5 should support RDFa, and that he was going to make it happen.)

15:03:47 [Steven]

Regrets for next 4 weeks

15:04:15 [markbirbeck]

Ivan: Regrets for next 4 weeks.

15:04:24 [markbirbeck]

Steven: Regrest for next 4 weeks.

15:04:34 [markbirbeck]

s/Regrest/Regrest/

15:05:14 [Zakim]

-manu

15:05:15 [Zakim]

-markbirbeck

15:05:15 [ivan]

zakim, drop me

15:05:16 [Zakim]

Ivan is being disconnected

15:05:16 [Zakim]

-Ivan

15:05:18 [Zakim]

-Knud

15:05:20 [Steven]

s/Regrest/Regrets/

15:05:25 [Zakim]

-ShaneM

15:05:46 [Steven]

zakim, who is on the phone?

15:05:46 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Steven

15:05:51 [Zakim]

-Steven

15:05:52 [Zakim]

SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended

15:05:54 [Zakim]

Attendees were +1.540.961.aaaa, manu, Steven, Ivan, ShaneM, +3539149aabb, Knud, markbirbeck

15:06:03 [Steven]

rrsagent,make minutes

15:06:03 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/07/22-rdfa-minutes.html Steven

15:06:19 [markbirbeck]

For information: I'm speaking at an event organised with Talis and NHS, on August 17th on Ontologies and Healthcare. Have invited Steven to speak on RDFa, since he's visiting at the time. :)

15:06:30 [Steven]

lol

16:30:31 [markbirbeck]

markbirbeck has joined #rdfa

16:30:38 [ShaneM]

ShaneM has joined #rdfa

17:28:37 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #rdfa

18:14:54 [ShaneM]

ShaneM has joined #rdfa

18:30:17 [manu]

trackbot, bye

18:30:17 [trackbot]

trackbot has left #rdfa

18:30:20 [manu]

rrsagent, bye

18:30:20 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items