13:23:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:23:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/09-rdfa-irc
13:23:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:23:55 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
13:23:57 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
13:23:57 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 37 minutes
13:23:58 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
13:23:58 <trackbot> Date: 09 September 2010
13:24:10 <ivan> Chair: Ivan
13:25:15 <ivan> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Sep/0036.html agenda call for the meeting
13:56:22 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
13:56:22 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
13:56:23 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
13:56:24 <Zakim> +Ivan
13:58:46 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
14:00:13 <Knud> Knud has joined #rdfa
14:00:20 <Zakim> +ShaneM
14:00:29 <Zakim> + +3539149aaaa
14:00:41 <ivan> zakim, aaaa is Knuth
14:00:41 <Zakim> +Knuth; got it
14:00:56 <Knud> it's Knud, actually. :)
14:01:01 <markbirbeck> markbirbeck has joined #rdfa
14:01:04 <Knud> zakim, mute me
14:01:04 <Zakim> sorry, Knud, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
14:01:14 <Zakim> -Ivan
14:01:21 <markbirbeck> zakim, code?
14:01:22 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), markbirbeck
14:01:28 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:01:28 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:01:28 <Knud> zakim, aaaa is Knud
14:01:28 <Zakim> sorry, Knud, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
14:01:30 <Zakim> +Ivan
14:01:40 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
14:01:40 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
14:01:41 <Zakim> +Steven
14:01:49 <Zakim> + +44.785.583.aabb
14:01:50 <Knud> zakim, Knuth is Knud
14:01:50 <Zakim> +Knud; got it
14:01:55 <Knud> zakim, mute me
14:01:55 <Zakim> Knud should now be muted
14:01:58 <Knud> better?
14:02:47 <tinkster> tinkster has joined #rdfa
14:02:54 <tinkster> yes
14:03:03 <tinkster> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:03:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ivan, ShaneM, Knud (muted), Steven, +44.785.583.aabb
14:03:11 <tinkster> zakim,aabb is me
14:03:11 <Zakim> +tinkster; got it
14:03:24 <tinkster> yep.
14:04:17 <ivan> scribenick: tinkster
14:04:22 <ivan> scribe: Toby
14:05:02 <Knud> I think mark is about to call in
14:05:11 <Knud> :)
14:05:22 <tinkster> Ivan: manu sent out an agenda. First item is RDFa API. Mark, Manu and Benjamin are absent, so difficult to discuss this item. Unless Benjamin and Mark appear, we should skip it for now.
14:05:42 <Zakim> +??P2
14:05:44 <Zakim> -??P2
14:06:20 <Zakim> +??P2
14:06:32 <markbirbeck> zakim, ?
14:06:32 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, markbirbeck.
14:06:38 <ivan> zakim, P2 is mark
14:06:38 <Zakim> sorry, ivan, I do not recognize a party named 'P2'
14:06:38 <markbirbeck> zakim, i am ?
14:06:39 <Zakim> +markbirbeck; got it
14:06:46 <ivan> zakim, ??P2 is mark
14:06:46 <Zakim> I already had ??P2 as markbirbeck, ivan
14:09:01 <Zakim> -ShaneM
14:09:13 <ShaneM> grrr.  brb
14:09:25 <tinkster> Ivan: have people seen Sandro Hawke's email, fowarded to the WG mailing list?
14:09:51 <Zakim> +ShaneM
14:10:12 <markbirbeck> q+, To say that this is no accident. :)
14:10:23 <markbirbeck> q+
14:10:49 <tinkster> ... Gist of it is that the RDFa API defines a generalised RDF API. I (Ivan) would agree that the DOM-dependent parts of it are fairly small; a lot of it is very general though we don't advertise the API that way.
14:11:18 <ivan> ack markbirbeck 
14:11:22 <tinkster> ... Community could find a general RDF API useful, so should we make this a clear aim of the RDFa API?
14:13:11 <tinkster> markbirbeck: The way this came about is that the first drafts were very RDFa-specific. Obviously, RDFa is a serialisation of RDF, so there's always going to be a generic component. Manu integrated my (Mark's) ideas with Benjamin's. During this, the RDFa-specific stuff diminished.
14:13:42 <Steven_> Steven_ has joined #rdfa
14:13:52 <Knud> :D
14:14:22 <tinkster> ... My input has come from my own RDF library, which in turn takes inspiration from various other libraries.
14:14:58 <tinkster> ... I did look at Tabulator when I first started. Ivan had commented that there are similarities with Jena's API.
14:16:13 <tinkster> Ivan: so can we make this more explicit, and can we get people to review its potential as a general RDF API?
14:16:35 <markbirbeck> q+
14:16:40 <ivan> ack markbirbeck 
14:16:44 <tinkster> ... How difficult/easy would it be to make the generalness of the API explicit in the document?
14:17:06 <ShaneM> A title change might be the right thing to do.
14:17:26 <tinkster> markbirbeck: quite easy, but this might be difficult from a political perspective.
14:18:24 <tinkster> zakim, mute me
14:18:24 <Zakim> tinkster should now be muted
14:19:23 <tinkster> Ivan: The W3C Semantic Web Activity is definitely the right place to define an RDF API; and within the Activity, the RDFa WG seems the most appropriate currently existing working group.
14:19:46 <tinkster> ... But would people expect a new group to be set up?
14:20:18 <tinkster> ... Should we change the document before or after we go public with the generic-API message?
14:21:40 <tinkster> markbirbeck: Let's not change this in the next publication round. And then maybe look at an RDF API document - perhaps as a fork.
14:22:20 <tinkster> ivan: I'm not sure about two parallel documents - even on a temporary basis.
14:22:32 <ShaneM> dont mind.
14:22:36 <Knud> agreeing
14:22:40 <Steven_> +0
14:24:01 <tinkster> Ivan: we should all blog/tweet/email the general RDF community for feedback.
14:25:16 <tinkster> Ivan: the real goal of the API is Javascript - how valid is it for other languages.
14:27:17 <tinkster> ShaneM: I think it's interesting that an RDFa API has a subset that is applicable to general RDF.  
14:27:48 <Steven_> I think that that is safer
14:29:36 <tinkster> Ivan: actually the RDFa-specific bits of the RDFa API aren't really RDFa-specific: they're DOM-specific.
14:30:17 <Zakim> -Knud
14:30:22 <tinkster> ... Before we start beating drums we should agree on a sales pitch.
14:30:27 <Knud> weird
14:31:06 <ivan> Topic: Issue 39
14:31:24 <Zakim> +Knud
14:31:34 <Knud> zakim, mute me
14:31:34 <Zakim> Knud should now be muted
14:31:44 <markbirbeck> ACTION: Mark to add proposed wording to wiki for how we might approach the RDFa API->RDF API discussion.
14:31:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-37 - Add proposed wording to wiki for how we might approach the RDFa API->RDF API discussion. [on Mark Birbeck - due 2010-09-16].
14:31:50 <Knud> Irish phonelines...
14:32:00 <tinkster> ivan: the next item is ISSUE-39. Firstly, Richard Cyganiak brought up a simpler format for term mappings.
14:33:09 <ShaneM> q+
14:33:10 <tinkster> ... Secondly, Mark is not keen on using RDF for profiles at all. 
14:33:15 <ivan> ack ShaneM 
14:33:16 <Steven_> action-37?
14:33:16 <trackbot> ACTION-37 -- Mark Birbeck to add proposed wording to wiki for how we might approach the RDFa API->RDF API discussion. -- due 2010-09-16 -- OPEN
14:33:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/actions/37
14:35:54 <tinkster> ShaneM/Mark: Mark isn't asking for this issue to be reopened. Mark thinks this issue shouldn't have been closed in the first place - there wasn't consensus on it.
14:36:45 <tinkster> Mark: I don't want to slow the work down, but this is an issue I feel strongly about.
14:37:45 <ShaneM> I still think we can resolve issue 39 regardless of the other bit.
14:38:59 <tinkster> ivan: I don't want to make a big procedural issue about this, but it's a good idea to try to sort this out before we get to last call.
14:39:22 <Steven_> issue-39?
14:39:22 <trackbot> ISSUE-39 -- Profiles, term mappings, and URIs as literals -- open
14:39:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/39
14:40:58 <tinkster> ... ShaneM: I think we can still work on Richard's bit of ISSUE-39 under the assumption that we're using RDF profiles. If we change profile format later on, so be it.
14:42:00 <tinkster> tinkster: I can live with whatever resolution is being proposed.
14:42:41 <ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/ProfileSpec
14:45:44 <Zakim> -ShaneM
14:46:22 <markbirbeck> waiting for Shane... :)
14:46:22 <Zakim> +ShaneM
14:46:27 <ShaneM> grrrr
14:47:34 <tinkster> markbirbeck: I object to this change.
14:48:07 <tinkster> ... And I think this is the kind of thing that a lot of semweb people might object to it.
14:48:54 <tinkster> ... It's simpler, but it's not good RDF. The W3C has held the line on RDF semantics for many years, we shouldn't break ranks.
14:48:54 <ShaneM> q+ to ask mark about mappings
14:51:41 <ivan> ack ShaneM 
14:51:41 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask mark about mappings
14:52:18 <ivan> q+
14:53:33 <tinkster> ShaneM: the RDFa profile document, when it's not being processed as a profile - when it's just being read as a document itself - then those triples should mean something.
14:53:45 <markbirbeck> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> rdfa:term "name" .
14:54:04 <tinkster> ... Is it your assertion that the proposal makes the profiles less meaningful as documents.
14:55:12 <tinkster> markbirbeck: yes. The example I just posted is sufficient for processing, but not very good semantically.
14:55:26 <markbirbeck> ?x rdfa:term "name" .
14:55:26 <markbirbeck> ?x rdfa:uri "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name" .
14:55:32 <tinkster> ... semantically we're annotating foaf:name there rather than just defining a mapping.
14:56:10 <ivan> ack ivan
14:57:39 <tinkster> ivan: I don't deny the original vocab is semantically more correct. Even Richard agreed with that. But the proposal is about a compromise between ease-of-use and semantic-correctness.
14:58:30 <tinkster> markbirbeck: isn't it the W3C's job to aim for correctness in standards?
14:58:52 <tinkster> s/markbirbeck/ShaneM/
14:59:34 <ShaneM> we can't be codifying things that are incorrect.  that way lies madness.
14:59:47 <tinkster> markbirbeck: Some of these things are being discussed as part of rdf.next, but we shouldn't jump the gun: we should keep to existing RDF semantics.
15:00:39 <tinkster> ShaneM: profile authors will be a rare breed. if things are a little more complicated for them, so be it.
15:01:04 <tinkster> ivan: The way I see this going is that we should resolve in favour of no change.
15:01:32 <tinkster> ShaneM: there are some editorial changes needed.
15:01:33 <ivan> PROPOSED: on ISSUE-39 do not change the current structures
15:01:53 <tinkster> ShaneM: do we have a quorum?
15:02:50 <tinkster> ShaneM: we should e-mail the list with our no-change conclusion, but not enough people here for an on-call resolution.
15:03:46 <ivan> - adjurned
15:03:59 <Zakim> -ShaneM
15:04:09 <ivan> zakim, drop me
15:04:09 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
15:04:10 <Zakim> -Ivan
15:04:10 <Zakim> -markbirbeck
15:04:11 <Zakim> -Knud
15:04:13 <Zakim> -Steven
15:04:23 <tinkster> ivan: I'll get Manu to call for an ISSUE-39 vote on the mailing list.
15:04:28 <Zakim> -tinkster
15:04:29 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
15:04:31 <Zakim> Attendees were Ivan, ShaneM, +3539149aaaa, Steven, +44.785.583.aabb, Knud, tinkster, markbirbeck
15:14:58 <ShaneM> ShaneM has left #rdfa
15:20:24 <Steven_> Steven_ has left #rdfa
16:14:38 <tinkster> tinkster has joined #rdfa
17:22:00 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfa
17:54:14 <tinkster> tinkster has joined #rdfa
18:32:49 <tinkster> tinkster has joined #rdfa
19:27:38 <Steven> Steven has left #rdfa
20:48:26 <tinkster> tinkster has joined #rdfa