IRC log of rdfa on 2011-01-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:57:40 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:57:40 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-rdfa-irc
14:57:42 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:57:42 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdfa
14:57:44 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 7332
14:57:45 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
14:57:45 [trackbot]
Date: 06 January 2011
14:57:45 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:58:10 [manu]
Chair: Manu
14:58:35 [manu]
Present: Ivan, MarkB, Steven, Toby, Nathan, Manu
14:59:17 [webr3]
apologies/regrets, I'm going to have to miss todays meeting as I've just been called in to the kids school for a meeting in 15 mins
14:59:56 [manu]
Regrets: Nathan
15:00:12 [Benjamin]
Benjamin has joined #rdfa
15:00:25 [manu]
Present+ Benjamin
15:00:47 [Zakim]
SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
15:00:54 [Zakim]
+ +1.540.961.aaaa
15:00:59 [manu]
zakim, I am aaaa
15:00:59 [Zakim]
+manu; got it
15:01:14 [Steven]
zakim, dial steven-617
15:01:14 [Zakim]
ok, Steven; the call is being made
15:01:18 [Zakim]
+Steven
15:01:23 [manu]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Jan/0029.html
15:01:31 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:01:31 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:01:34 [Zakim]
+Ivan
15:01:51 [Zakim]
+ +63.12.057.5aabb
15:02:09 [Benjamin]
zakim, I am aabb
15:02:21 [Zakim]
+Benjamin; got it
15:03:12 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:03:23 [Benjamin]
scribenick: Benjamin
15:03:33 [Zakim]
+ShaneM
15:04:12 [Benjamin]
manu: let's start. Any updates, changes to agenda?
15:04:21 [manu]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:04:21 [Zakim]
On the phone I see manu, Steven, Ivan, Benjamin, ShaneM
15:04:35 [manu]
Topic: Work Plan for 1st Quarter of 2011
15:04:40 [manu]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Jan/0001.html
15:05:08 [Benjamin]
... it covers January, February and March
15:06:25 [Benjamin]
... Shane aggreed to handle the last call comments
15:06:57 [Benjamin]
... do we want to speak up before sending responses?
15:07:39 [Benjamin]
ivan: Shane should not be pushed with technical issues.
15:08:42 [Benjamin]
manu1: I created issues for all most incomming comments
15:08:48 [manu]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/products/8
15:09:53 [Benjamin]
ShaneM: Some comments are more related to XHTML or HTML. I'll redirect these.
15:10:31 [Benjamin]
manu1: Next plan is to get the RDFa API and RDF API document into better shape.
15:13:47 [markbirbeck]
belated apologies, I'm afraid.
15:13:55 [markbirbeck]
can't make the call...sorry.
15:15:01 [Benjamin]
Manu1: In March we hope to have first implementations of the RDFa API
15:17:25 [Benjamin]
... In March try to move to Porposed Recommendations for current Working Drafts
15:18:01 [Benjamin]
ivan: let's talk about the Primer
15:18:31 [Benjamin]
ivan: what about the chartered optional cookbook?
15:19:14 [Benjamin]
... the cookbok should include RDFa API content. Therefore the deadline should be later.
15:19:46 [tinkster]
I started gathering some potential examples for the cookbook on the WG wiki.
15:19:47 [Benjamin]
... maybe we could collect code snippets from our discussion on a wiki page
15:20:35 [Benjamin]
... Toby began to play with an ATOM host laguage for RDFa
15:20:49 [Benjamin]
... we should publish that as anote
15:20:49 [tinkster]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Cookbook/Examples
15:21:36 [tinkster]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Atom_plus_RDFa
15:21:40 [Benjamin]
manu1: let's discuss it on the mailing list
15:22:09 [manu]
Topic: Thoughts on RDF API and RDFa API Documents
15:22:17 [manu]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdf-api/
15:22:24 [manu]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-api/
15:22:37 [Benjamin]
manu1: Is everyone OK with the current directions of these documents?
15:23:52 [Benjamin]
benjamin: i am ok, want to look deeper into the RDF API
15:24:04 [Benjamin]
Steven: OK
15:24:11 [manu]
Topic: XHTML Profile document changes/management
15:24:21 [manu]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Dec/0054.html
15:24:40 [Benjamin]
manu1: toby was working on this
15:24:42 [manu]
http://buzzword.org.uk/2010/xhtml-vocab-20101110.xhtml
15:24:54 [Zakim]
+ +44.785.583.aacc
15:25:00 [tinkster]
Zakim, aacc is me
15:25:00 [Zakim]
+tinkster; got it
15:25:31 [Benjamin]
manu: good you give an overview Toby?
15:26:05 [ivan]
q+
15:26:07 [Benjamin]
tinkster: update is on mapping the XHTML vocabulary with other vocabluaries like Dublin Core
15:26:39 [Benjamin]
manu: This is a good thing to do.
15:26:55 [Benjamin]
manu: Any concerns about this?
15:26:56 [manu]
ack ivan
15:27:07 [Benjamin]
ivan: I have some comments.
15:27:15 [tinkster]
zakim, mute me
15:27:15 [Zakim]
tinkster should now be muted
15:27:58 [manu]
q+ to discuss core vs. xhtml profiles
15:28:10 [Benjamin]
... Many changes relate to core level rather than XHTML.
15:29:01 [Benjamin]
... We have to have a well documented process about how a prefix gets into the profile
15:30:00 [manu]
ack manu
15:30:00 [Zakim]
manu, you wanted to discuss core vs. xhtml profiles
15:30:05 [Benjamin]
... It's tricky to add or not add vocabularies like Dublin Core, Foaf , SIOC or Google's.
15:30:42 [Benjamin]
manu: RDFa core is intended to cover abstract vocabularies
15:31:14 [Benjamin]
ivan: I disagree
15:32:49 [Benjamin]
ShaneM: The RDFa core does not concern about any other document formats
15:34:47 [Benjamin]
ivan: RDFa Core works with any XML language
15:35:49 [Benjamin]
ivan: I should be able to use the RDF distiller for any RDFa data containing any RDF vocabulary
15:36:16 [Benjamin]
manu: should we add the document conformance into the RDFa Core document?
15:36:52 [Benjamin]
ShaneM: We could add a section about XML conformance.
15:37:34 [Benjamin]
... Ivan you use case is a real use case. I have to think about this issue. How about testing? Do we have a core test suite?
15:41:29 [Benjamin]
ivan: For a given set of vocabularies (SIOC, FOAF, ...) we should be able to use them without a profile.
15:41:38 [manu]
q?
15:42:07 [Benjamin]
ivan: An XHTML document should have two profiles, the default profile and its own profile.
15:42:08 [tinkster]
chances are you'd hardcode both.
15:42:34 [Benjamin]
ShaneM: We should not have two profiles
15:44:12 [ShaneM]
define an XML+RDFa host language
15:44:57 [tinkster]
I use media type.
15:45:00 [Benjamin]
ivan: How does a processor identify the host language?
15:45:52 [manu]
q+ to discuss checking the vocabulary profile
15:45:55 [manu]
ack manu
15:45:55 [Zakim]
manu, you wanted to discuss checking the vocabulary profile
15:47:37 [manu]
q+ to discuss selecting the default profile
15:48:08 [ShaneM]
XHTML+RDFa says: XHTML+RDFa documents should be labeled with the Internet Media Type "application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236]. For further information on using media types with XHTML Family markup languages, see the informative note [XHTML-MEDIA-TYPES].
15:48:25 [Benjamin]
manu: The HTML said that analysing the mimetpye is not the right way to identify the host language
15:50:34 [Benjamin]
ivan: not all document formats have a doc type
15:50:49 [tinkster]
HTML5 served as text/html can have xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
15:51:47 [manu]
ack manu
15:51:47 [Zakim]
manu, you wanted to discuss selecting the default profile
15:52:13 [Benjamin]
manu: although you cannot count on it, as shown by Toby's example we should use the namespace to decide which profile to use
15:53:37 [ShaneM]
I would prefer embedding rules for XML+RDFa in RDFa Core rather than a separate spec
15:54:09 [Benjamin]
... I don't know if we have a concensus about implementing the profile lookup for RDFa processors
15:54:25 [ShaneM]
RDFa Core needs to have rules for discovery defined in section 4.1
15:55:05 [Benjamin]
ivan: We could add an XML profile section in the RDFA Core spec
15:55:51 [Benjamin]
manu: another XML spec is not much more work
15:56:23 [Benjamin]
ShaneM: We have to recharter when publishing another specification
15:56:42 [Benjamin]
... I would add it into the conformance section
16:00:04 [ShaneM]
We need to add these as specific last call issues so we can address them
16:01:18 [tinkster]
There is a difference in terms of constructing the DOM from the byte stream.
16:01:48 [manu]
q+ to end the meeting
16:04:10 [Benjamin]
ShaneM: A conformance should use information form the higher level protocol to determine the document format
16:06:29 [Zakim]
-ShaneM
16:06:30 [ivan]
zakim, drop me
16:06:30 [Zakim]
Ivan is being disconnected
16:06:31 [Zakim]
-Ivan
16:06:31 [Zakim]
-tinkster
16:06:33 [Zakim]
-manu
16:06:33 [Zakim]
-Steven
16:06:35 [Benjamin]
... is it OK that I fix comments I absolutely OK with.
16:06:49 [Benjamin]
The group agreed.
16:06:54 [Zakim]
-Benjamin
16:06:56 [Zakim]
SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
16:06:58 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.540.961.aaaa, manu, Steven, Ivan, +63.12.057.5aabb, Benjamin, ShaneM, +44.785.583.aacc, tinkster
16:09:20 [Benjamin]
s/mimetpye/media type/
16:09:50 [manu]
zakim, who is on the call?
16:09:50 [Zakim]
apparently SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended, manu
16:09:51 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ShaneM, Benjamin, Zakim, RRSAgent, Steven, manu, tinkster, ivan, webr3, manu1, trackbot, markbirbeck
16:10:24 [Benjamin]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:10:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-rdfa-minutes.html Benjamin
17:27:45 [manu]
zakim, bye
17:27:45 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfa
17:27:48 [manu]
trackbot, bye
17:27:48 [trackbot]
trackbot has left #rdfa
17:27:51 [manu]
rrsagent, bye
17:27:51 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items