13:52:15 RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 13:52:15 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/07/07-rdfa-irc 13:52:17 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:52:17 Zakim has joined #rdfa 13:52:19 Zakim, this will be 7332 13:52:19 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes 13:52:20 Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference 13:52:20 Date: 07 July 2011 13:53:23 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Jul/0006.html 13:53:26 Chair: Manu 13:55:50 lindstream_ has joined #rdfa 13:56:19 zakim, code? 13:56:19 the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), manu 13:57:52 lindstream has joined #rdfa 14:00:07 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started 14:00:14 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended 14:00:15 Attendees were 14:00:41 SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started 14:00:49 +scor 14:00:57 +??P21 14:01:00 +??P18 14:01:00 zakim, this is ??P21 14:01:00 sorry, manu, I do not see a conference named '??P21' in progress or scheduled at this time 14:01:07 zakim, ??P21 is me 14:01:07 +manu; got it 14:01:20 +??P26 14:02:02 +OpenLink_Software 14:02:08 Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 14:02:11 Zakim, mute me 14:02:14 Zakim, who's here? 14:02:26 +MacTed; got it 14:02:30 MacTed should now be muted 14:02:34 On the phone I see ??P18, scor, manu, ??P26, MacTed (muted) 14:02:41 zakim, ??26 is lindstream 14:02:48 zakim, code? 14:03:02 On IRC I see lindstream, Zakim, RRSAgent, scor, MacTed, Steven_, manu1, danbri, SebastianGermesin, tinkster, manu, gkellogg, trackbot 14:03:09 sorry, manu, I do not recognize a party named '??26' 14:03:17 the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), Steven_ 14:03:23 zakim, who is on the call? 14:03:29 -??P26 14:03:45 +??P26 14:03:51 +Steven 14:03:51 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:04:01 On the phone I see ??P18, scor, manu, MacTed (muted), ??P26, Steven 14:04:07 zakim, ??P26 is gkellogg 14:04:22 On the phone I see ??P18, scor, manu, MacTed (muted), ??P26, Steven 14:04:27 easy test -- mute one, speak ... see which is quited 14:04:31 zakim, ??P18 is me 14:04:34 +gkellogg; got it 14:04:34 s/quited/quieted/ 14:04:37 zakim, I am Steven 14:04:48 +lindstream; got it 14:04:52 ok, Steven_, I now associate you with Steven 14:05:15 zakim, ??P26 is me 14:05:15 I already had ??P26 as gkellogg, gkellogg 14:05:58 manu: not set yet 14:06:15 zakim, who is on the call? 14:06:15 On the phone I see lindstream, scor, manu, MacTed (muted), gkellogg, Steven 14:06:40 Zakim, unmute me 14:06:40 MacTed should no longer be muted 14:06:46 scribe: Ted 14:06:52 scribenick: MacTed 14:08:16 Introduction: Niklas Lindstrom 14:09:07 lindstream: consultant in Sweden, working with RDF for 6+ years, semantics and fidelity of expression are prime interests 14:09:43 ... coming back to RDFa from API perspective, but now considering Microdata/mapping concerns 14:10:11 Topic: Updates on HTML WG position on TAG note 14:10:28 http://www.w3.org/2011/06/30-html-wg-minutes.html#item09 14:10:49 manu: HTML WG has discussed what to do about TAG note; basic response is "need information" 14:11:05 q+ 14:12:16 Steven_: all the more reason why we should send a formal objection 14:12:24 manu: better that the TAG does that 14:12:26 ack me 14:13:37 manu: HTML WG has basically asked TAG to make their concerns more clear and formal, before they will act 14:14:01 Steven_: if TAG does so, that's fine. if not, then we should step up. 14:14:38 manu: that's the path we'll take 14:14:44 Topic: Review official position e-mail on TAG issue 14:14:54 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Jul/0007.html 14:16:30 manu: ...reviewing official position email draft, position by position... 14:17:44 ... "CONCERN: Multiple specifications for the same task" -- effectively, same concern as TAG has expressed. 14:18:00 q+ 14:18:02 ... not "which spec should exist?" but "should there be two specs?" 14:18:47 q+ 14:19:00 ack gkellogg 14:19:03 gkellogg: 2 key questions -- should there be 2 markups, and what is range of data to be marked up? 14:19:34 ... i.e., what is the purpose of metadata markup in HTML? presumably to generate data compatible with other W3C specs, e.g., RDF 14:19:50 ack lindstream 14:20:46 steven__ has joined #rdfa 14:22:34 q+ 14:22:51 (discussion) 14:24:23 q+ 14:24:35 ack MacTed 14:24:54 ack MacTed 14:25:10 MacTed: This is a range issue - what use cases are supported? 14:25:14 ack lindstream 14:25:40 lindstream: apart from use cases (what), microdata raises concern of *how* 14:26:18 ... how much do you expose to an expert as opposed to a newbie? 14:27:07 manu: is the important thing, how much complexity do new people have to deal with straight-away? 14:27:58 lindstream: that's the gist. e.g., if something looks like a date, is that enough, or does it have to be specifically typed, etc? 14:28:18 bear in mind that the reason why md was created is because RDFa was covering too many use cases and was overkill for the basic web developers... the TF should focus on identifying practical use cases which RDFa covers (and not no md) which make sense for regular web developers (the audience of md) 14:29:51 manu: `CONCERN: Consensus on "No Change"` -- TAG must know that this really isn't an option 14:30:02 q+ 14:30:57 lindstream: it's very bad to have two specs for the same thing... 14:31:45 manu: `CONCERN: Key implementers will choose to not be involved.` XHTML and XForms both had task forces to figure out best way forward; neither was successful because key players didn't play 14:32:06 ack lindstream 14:32:15 ... advice is, make sure the list we've sent gets involved 14:32:56 ... `CONCERN: Agreement and then non-action` -- everybody agrees on plan, but nobody acts on agreement... 14:33:19 ... advice is to actively review commitments and report on follow-through 14:34:38 ... `CONCERN: Slow creation of Task Force` -- if it takes too long to create TF, other WG (RDFa, HTML, others?) timelines are jeopardized 14:35:13 ... advice is to prioritize this TF effort 14:35:39 q+ 14:35:51 ack lindstream 14:36:34 lindstream: conflicting specs have happened before. this is opportunity for W3C to show they can handle such conflicts... 14:39:18 Steven_: does TAG think that creating this TF is their job? 14:39:19 ShaneM has joined #rdfa 14:39:35 manu: nobody wants the job... everybody's waiting to see who steps forward 14:39:48 ... we'll nudge TAG to accept responsibility 14:40:07 ... `CONCERN: TAG Note is not actionable` 14:40:36 ... advice: formalize objections & concerns, so that something actually comes of this 14:42:03 ACTION: manu to revise email to TAG based on today's discussion, with "last comments" due ASAP mailing list 14:42:04 Created ACTION-87 - Revise email to TAG based on today's discussion, with "last comments" due ASAP mailing list [on Manu Sporny - due 2011-07-14]. 14:42:25 Topic: Thoughts on RDFa Basic vs. RDFa Advanced 14:42:35 http://manu.sporny.org/rdfa/rdfa-core-simplified/diff-20110331.html 14:43:12 lindstream: Microdata seems to be surface data with no fidelity. 14:43:39 ... can quickly be mapped to triples, if you base off URI of current document 14:44:56 ... vocab and profile mechanisms could be used to add fidelity 14:45:25 ... somewhat akin to GRDDL 14:46:17 This is somewhat akin to the JSON-LD coercion approach: http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/20110615/#type-coercion 14:47:01 manu: points out similarity of JSON-LD coercion approach: http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/20110615/#type-coercion 14:47:11 +??P2 14:47:57 lindstream: and also to GLUON... 14:47:58 q+ 14:49:25 ack gkellogg 14:49:35 lindstream: this might also answer how to represent RDF connections in RDFa 14:49:43 q+ to note browser manufacturers don't like this. 14:50:01 q+ 14:50:26 gkellogg: putting profile in RDFa Advanced seems to make this a less useful path forward...? 14:50:27 ack manu 14:50:27 manu, you wanted to note browser manufacturers don't like this. 14:51:54 manu: browser vendors are expressing preference for non-RDFa APIs, because they think RDFa API makes caching and other performance issues harder to address 14:52:23 manu: trouble with profile is that browser has to stop processing, retrieve profile doc, and then resume processing 14:52:54 ack lindstream 14:52:59 ... browser vendors just don't like profile... 14:54:30 lindstream: put profile in Basic, but allow basic API processing *without* profile application (and thus low fidelity). Advanced brings profile processing (and high fidelity)... 14:55:20 zakim, who is on the call? 14:55:20 On the phone I see lindstream, scor, manu, MacTed, gkellogg, Steven, ??P2 14:55:38 zakim, ??P2 is ShaneM 14:55:38 +ShaneM; got it 14:56:58 Topic: Philip's comments on APIs 14:56:58 manu: should be taken seriously, as a key browser implementer... 14:58:20 q+ 14:58:27 manu: maybe we should sit on WHAT WG, mozilla, other channels, and pester them about API thoughts 14:58:53 ... we do want a path that makes it easy for browser vendors to implement 14:58:58 q- 14:58:59 q+ 14:59:41 ... "easy to implement in Javascript doesn't mean easy to implement in a performant way" 15:00:04 ack lindstream 15:01:18 lindstream: performance concerns seem addressable by low-fidelity microdata-ish RDFa Basic. 15:01:31 q+ 15:01:37 ack MacTed 15:01:59 MacTed: It seems that the browser vendors are mostly concerned about human interaction - most of what we're takling about is machine interaction. 15:02:12 q+ 15:02:54 MacTed: Basic to Advanced progression makes a great deal of sense to me - initial pass - low fidelity. Once there is something there for human to deal w/ then we do more advanced / less performant mechanism. 15:03:43 lindstream: interesting consideration is "end users" vs "re-users" even more than "human" vs "machine" 15:04:19 q+ 15:04:24 manu: we should not be pestering them 15:04:30 manu1: ^^ 15:04:50 manu: anyone willing to sit on WHAT-WG channel and ask questions? 15:05:06 lindstream: will be polling relevant existing contacts... 15:05:10 ack scor 15:05:23 +1 15:05:47 manu: right, this is not about pestering, but about checking for concerns with APIs, and figuring out how best to address... 15:06:12 ... correcting misundersatndings, etc. 15:08:00 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:08:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/07/07-rdfa-minutes.html MacTed 15:08:05 RRSAgent, make minutes public 15:08:05 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', MacTed. Try /msg RRSAgent help 15:08:08 -gkellogg 15:08:10 -manu 15:08:11 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:08:14 -Steven 15:08:16 -lindstream 15:08:18 -ShaneM 15:08:18 trackbot, end call 15:08:18 Sorry, MacTed, I don't understand 'trackbot, end call'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help 15:08:20 -scor 15:08:24 trackbot, end conference 15:08:24 Zakim, list attendees 15:08:24 As of this point the attendees have been scor, manu, MacTed, Steven, gkellogg, lindstream, ShaneM 15:08:25 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 15:08:25 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/07/07-rdfa-minutes.html trackbot 15:08:26 RRSAgent, bye 15:08:26 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/07-rdfa-actions.rdf : 15:08:26 ACTION: manu to revise email to TAG based on today's discussion, with "last comments" due ASAP mailing list [1] 15:08:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/07-rdfa-irc#T14-42-03