IRC log of rdfa on 2011-09-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:02:59 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:02:59 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-irc
13:03:01 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
13:03:01 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdfa
13:03:03 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 7332
13:03:03 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 57 minutes
13:03:04 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:03:04 [trackbot]
Date: 08 September 2011
13:03:04 [danbri]
danbri has joined #rdfa
13:03:14 [ivan]
Chair: Ivan
13:03:52 [ivan]
ivan has changed the topic to: meeting agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Sep/0034.html
13:12:44 [danbri_]
danbri_ has joined #rdfa
13:47:46 [tomayac]
tomayac has joined #rdfa
13:51:59 [MacTed]
MacTed has joined #rdfa
13:57:48 [Steven]
Steven has joined #rdfa
13:59:02 [lindstream]
lindstream has joined #rdfa
13:59:15 [Zakim]
SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
13:59:22 [Zakim]
+??P5
13:59:29 [lindstream]
zakim, I am ??P5
13:59:29 [Zakim]
+lindstream; got it
13:59:33 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
13:59:33 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
13:59:34 [Zakim]
+Ivan
13:59:48 [Zakim]
+??P7
14:00:11 [gkellogg]
zakim ??P7 is me
14:00:25 [gkellogg]
zakim, ??P7 is me
14:00:25 [Zakim]
+gkellogg; got it
14:00:27 [Zakim]
+OpenLink_Software
14:00:42 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:00:42 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
14:00:44 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
14:00:44 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
14:01:12 [Steven]
zakim, code?
14:01:13 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Steven
14:01:53 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
14:01:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see lindstream, Ivan, gkellogg, MacTed (muted)
14:01:55 [Zakim]
On IRC I see lindstream, Steven, MacTed, danbri_, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, SebastianGermesin, gkellogg, trackbot, manu, manu1
14:02:31 [scor]
scor has joined #rdfa
14:02:53 [Zakim]
+Steven
14:03:27 [Zakim]
+ +1.781.866.aaaa
14:03:42 [ivan]
zakim, aaaa is scor
14:03:42 [Zakim]
+scor; got it
14:04:02 [ivan]
zakim, pick a victim
14:04:02 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Steven
14:04:19 [Steven]
Scribe: Steven
14:04:23 [ivan]
scribenick: Steven
14:04:31 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:04:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
14:05:01 [Steven]
rrsagent, make log public
14:05:08 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:05:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
14:05:13 [ivan]
Topic: Issue 106
14:05:17 [ivan]
issue-106?
14:05:17 [trackbot]
ISSUE-106 -- Should RDFa support the creation of ordered lists? -- open
14:05:17 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/106
14:05:39 [Steven]
Regrets: Shane
14:06:06 [Steven]
Ivan: Comments came in from Jenni, asking if we would have syntax for creating lists
14:07:16 [Steven]
gkellog: this is a resurfacing of an earlier question, for merging with microdata
14:07:23 [danbri]
danbri has joined #rdfa
14:07:32 [Steven]
s/log/logg/
14:07:53 [Steven]
gkellog: Sparql makes this more relevant
14:08:15 [Steven]
... no collection attribute, but a member attribute to reduce syntax needed
14:08:32 [Steven]
... became too complicated with lists within lists
14:08:55 [gkellogg]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Lists#Processing_Rules_addition_with_.40member_alternative
14:08:59 [Steven]
... not sure of use case forthat, except for covering full Turtle
14:08:59 [ivan]
q+
14:09:10 [Steven]
... wiki shows state of play now
14:09:15 [ivan]
ack ivan
14:09:18 [Steven]
... for processing rules
14:09:36 [Steven]
Ivan: I looked at Greg's approach, implemented it, giving the second implementation
14:09:43 [Steven]
... shows it is working
14:09:57 [Steven]
... I am happy dropping my original pre-preocessing approach
14:10:14 [Steven]
... do we want this functionality in RDFa?
14:10:27 [Steven]
... if so, do we accept this approach?
14:10:37 [lindstream]
q+
14:10:43 [ivan]
ack lindstream
14:10:49 [Steven]
... So do we have enough evidence for the need?
14:11:17 [gkellogg]
q+
14:11:22 [ivan]
ack gkellogg
14:11:49 [Steven]
gkellogg: There really has been a need to describe an ordered list in the past
14:12:11 [Steven]
... used seq in the past, may now be obsolete
14:12:28 [Steven]
... rdf uses linked list semantics, which reduces their expressibility
14:12:31 [danbri]
danbri has joined #rdfa
14:12:37 [Steven]
... now being addressed in RDF
14:12:53 [Steven]
... otherwise used classes from ordered list ontology
14:12:57 [Steven]
... which is verbose
14:13:23 [Steven]
... schema.org examples show use cases
14:13:40 [lindstream]
q+
14:13:42 [ivan]
q?
14:13:42 [Steven]
... so is missing in RDFa, we need to add it
14:13:52 [ivan]
ack lindstream
14:14:01 [Steven]
lindstream: Agree
14:14:44 [Steven]
Ivan: Does drupal miss this, Stefan?
14:15:11 [Steven]
Stefan: there are examples
14:15:33 [Steven]
... usually lists in drupal are ordered
14:15:45 [lindstream]
Things that need lists: owl:unionOf, bibo:authorList, parts of the LD-API...
14:16:22 [Steven]
... another question - couldn't we add steps that rely on the ordering in the DOM tree?
14:17:31 [Steven]
Ivan: I think the algorithm already does that
14:18:03 [Steven]
... Greg's syntax puts a flag on each element that has to be added
14:18:21 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
14:18:21 [Zakim]
On the phone I see lindstream, Ivan, gkellogg, MacTed (muted), Steven, scor
14:18:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see danbri, scor, lindstream, Steven, MacTed, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, SebastianGermesin, gkellogg, trackbot, manu, manu1
14:19:51 [Steven]
Ivan: I propose we ask the people here what we think, and finalise the decision on the list.
14:20:24 [MacTed]
straw poll
14:20:38 [Steven]
Ivan: So first questionn - do we think we should add a list mechanism
14:20:47 [gkellogg]
+1
14:20:48 [Steven]
s/ism/ism?/
14:20:48 [lindstream]
+1
14:20:50 [MacTed]
+1
14:20:53 [ivan]
s/questionn/question/
14:20:54 [scor]
+1
14:20:55 [ivan]
+1
14:20:57 [Steven]
Stevenh: +0
14:21:02 [Steven]
s/h:/:/
14:21:11 [Steven]
s/+0/+1
14:21:26 [Steven]
Ivan: Clear enough
14:21:36 [lindstream]
q+
14:21:43 [ivan]
ack lindstream
14:21:43 [Steven]
Ivan: Second question: Do we use Greg's syntax?
14:21:57 [Steven]
lindstream: Basic mechanism is good
14:22:29 [Steven]
... there are details that I am not comfortable with
14:22:42 [Steven]
... like repeating the predicate
14:22:49 [gkellogg]
q+
14:22:53 [Steven]
... I need to try it out more
14:23:00 [lindstream]
http://schema.org/docs/schemaorg.owl
14:23:03 [scor]
gkellogg: have you looked at Toby's proposal for lists in RDFa? (I'm not familiar with it, I just recall he posted something a while ago)
14:23:12 [Steven]
... such as on Owl examples
14:23:18 [gkellogg]
I did some time ago, and wasn't a real fan.
14:23:52 [Steven]
... but is the name 'member' suitable?
14:24:00 [lindstream]
@listitem(of)? @inlist? @appendsto... (says what happens)
14:24:07 [Steven]
.. it may not be; may be one of these:
14:24:31 [lindstream]
inlist="owl:unionOf"
14:24:35 [Steven]
s/../.../
14:24:58 [Steven]
... using @inlist it could then include the predicate
14:25:29 [Steven]
Ivan: we should leaving naming to the end of the discussion
14:25:36 [ivan]
ack gkellogg
14:25:58 [Steven]
gkellogg: We still have the uncompleted triples mechanism
14:26:28 [Steven]
... so in regards to @rel, there is no repetition of predicate
14:26:50 [Steven]
... I also looked at @member taking a value, and it does add some confusion
14:27:13 [ivan]
+1 to gregg
14:27:20 [Steven]
... having another place for a property
14:27:21 [ivan]
q?
14:27:25 [ivan]
q+
14:27:28 [ivan]
ack ivan
14:27:51 [lindstream]
q+
14:27:58 [Steven]
Ivan: I didn't try to implement it that way, but I see Greg's point
14:28:19 [ivan]
ack lindstream
14:28:45 [Steven]
lindstream: I hadn't seen the use of a hanging member, but agree that woul mean less repetition
14:28:53 [Steven]
s/woul/would/
14:29:10 [Steven]
lindream: Problem is readability; empty attribute bugs me a bit
14:29:44 [Steven]
... it really changes how @rel and @property work
14:30:41 [lindstream]
<li><a rel="owl:unionOf" member="" href="#ClassOne"></a></li>
14:30:55 [Steven]
Lindstream: Consider this example
14:30:58 [lindstream]
<li><a inlist="owl:unionOf" href="#ClassOne"></a></li>
14:31:26 [Steven]
... I'llk discuss it more on the mailing list
14:31:31 [Steven]
s/k//
14:32:03 [Steven]
Ivan: THat's fine, we just need to make a decision quite quickly
14:33:34 [lindstream]
q+
14:33:42 [Steven]
s/TH/Th/
14:33:42 [ivan]
ack lindstream
14:34:22 [Steven]
lindstream: The member processing hint may be problematic, since it is not backwards compatible
14:35:17 [Steven]
Ivan: One radical thing to use would be inlist with a property
14:35:28 [Steven]
... a decent way of solving this
14:35:35 [lindstream]
<li><a inlist="owl:unionOf" rel="related" href="#ClassOne"></a></li>
14:35:47 [Steven]
lindstream: Here is a strawman
14:36:15 [Steven]
Ivan: Leave this for the mailing list
14:36:35 [Steven]
... as for naming, I have no strong feeling. I see the advantage of @inlist
14:37:08 [Steven]
gkellogg: I go with the consensus
14:37:23 [Steven]
... but adding a value would make processing rules more complicated
14:37:53 [Steven]
Ivan: OK, discuss on email
14:38:14 [ivan]
Topic issue 104
14:38:18 [ivan]
ISSUE-104?
14:38:18 [trackbot]
ISSUE-104 -- Determine if RDFa should normatively state that <link> and <meta> elements are supported in flow content. -- open
14:38:18 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/104
14:38:20 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:38:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
14:38:49 [Steven]
Ivan: HTML5 allows link and meta only in the head
14:38:57 [Steven]
.... XHTML2 proposed allowing them anywhere
14:39:19 [gkellogg]
q+
14:39:20 [Steven]
... HTML5 microdata proposes allowing them in the body as well.
14:39:37 [ivan]
q+
14:39:44 [ivan]
ack gkellogg
14:39:45 [Steven]
... should we allow it too?
14:40:02 [ivan]
ack ivan
14:40:04 [Steven]
q+
14:40:40 [Steven]
Ivan: I don't think we have to make the decision
14:41:00 [lindstream]
q+
14:41:02 [ivan]
ack Steven
14:41:04 [Steven]
... RDFa can cope with it either way
14:41:38 [ivan]
ack lindstream
14:42:19 [Steven]
Steven: Agree. We only need attributes, and they would work if these elements are in the content
14:42:31 [Steven]
... but we can emulate the effect of them as well without the elements
14:43:10 [Steven]
Lindstream: There may be a rule that the elements are only allowed in content if they have microdata attributes
14:43:20 [Steven]
q+
14:43:38 [scor]
ivan: how about the @rev attribute then?
14:43:58 [scor]
we (RDFa) do add it on top of the HTML5 spec
14:44:00 [Steven]
Ivan: THis is an issue that came from Jenni via the HTML5 camp
14:44:00 [ivan]
ack Steven
14:44:10 [scor]
even though it's not allowed in HTML5
14:44:46 [scor]
I agree though @rev is an attribute and link/meta are elements
14:45:13 [Steven]
Steven: We can still add our attributes onto the elements
14:45:14 [lindstream]
q+
14:45:24 [ivan]
ack lindstream
14:45:53 [Steven]
Lindstream: Can we reply to Jenni that for it to work we need our attributes to be acceptable on them
14:46:00 [Steven]
Ivan: Yes.
14:46:14 [gkellogg]
s/Jenni/Jeni/
14:46:25 [Steven]
s/Jenni/Jeni/G
14:46:38 [ivan]
PROPOSED: on issue 107: this is not what this wg can solve, the HTML5 WG has to allow these elements everywhere, the RDFa processing rules autoamtically apply
14:47:01 [ivan]
s/autoamtically/automatically/
14:47:06 [gkellogg]
+1
14:47:24 [Steven]
Steven: relaxing the microdata attributes requirement
14:47:39 [gkellogg]
s/+1//
14:47:41 [ivan]
PROPOSED: on issue 107: this is not what this wg can solve, the HTML5 WG has to allow these elements everywhere by relaxing the restriction of being used with microdata attributes only; the RDFa processing rules autimatically apply
14:47:55 [Steven]
+1
14:47:56 [ivan]
+1
14:47:58 [gkellogg]
+1
14:47:58 [lindstream]
+1
14:48:06 [MacTed]
+1
14:48:11 [ivan]
RESOLVED: on issue 107: this is not what this wg can solve, the HTML5 WG has to allow these elements everywhere by relaxing the restriction of being used with microdata attributes only; the RDFa processing rules autimatically apply
14:48:15 [MacTed]
s/autimatically/automatically/
14:48:17 [scor]
+!
14:48:19 [scor]
+1
14:48:22 [scor]
s/autimatically/automatically
14:48:28 [lindstream]
oh, that's 104?
14:48:30 [lindstream]
q+
14:48:44 [MacTed]
s/107/104/
14:48:51 [lindstream]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/104
14:48:58 [Steven]
ACTION: Gkellog to write a reply to Jeni about issue 104, in line with the resolution
14:48:58 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Gkellog
14:49:00 [ivan]
ack lindstream
14:49:05 [Steven]
ACTION: Gkellogg to write a reply to Jeni about issue 104, in line with the resolution
14:49:06 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-93 - Write a reply to Jeni about issue 104, in line with the resolution [on Gregg Kellogg - due 2011-09-15].
14:49:37 [ivan]
Topic src attribute, ISSUE-107
14:49:41 [ivan]
ISSUE-107?
14:49:41 [trackbot]
ISSUE-107 -- Determine if @src attribute should be viewed in the object position instead of the subject position. -- open
14:49:41 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/107
14:49:47 [Steven]
s/Topic/Topic:
14:49:47 [gkellogg]
s/Gkellog/gkellogg/g
14:50:12 [Steven]
Ivan: This would be an incompatible change
14:50:31 [Steven]
... Gregg you have a problem with this?
14:51:13 [Steven]
Gkellogg: I see examples of this causing problems
14:51:32 [Steven]
... I believe it was added for the use case of license information for images
14:51:41 [Steven]
... which I have never seen
14:51:46 [Steven]
... in the wild
14:51:56 [ivan]
q?
14:52:03 [scor]
q+
14:52:05 [Steven]
... so not clear how much the backwards incompatibility would be a problem
14:52:07 [Steven]
q+
14:52:18 [Steven]
Ivan: I feel your pain
14:52:27 [ivan]
ack scror
14:52:50 [Steven]
Stefan: We do use this @src as a subject in some cases
14:52:56 [Steven]
... but I do support the change
14:53:12 [Steven]
... we use it in combination with @typeof
14:53:19 [lindstream]
q+
14:53:20 [Steven]
ack sc
14:53:29 [ivan]
ack Steven
14:54:43 [ivan]
ack lindstream
14:55:11 [Steven]
Steven: I opposed this originally, but CC may use it a lot; I was overruled. I think we need to consider the existing users before we remove it
14:55:24 [lindstream]
<img rel="depiction" src="me.jpg"/> vs. <img rel="depicts" src="me.jpg" resource="#me"/>
14:55:30 [Steven]
lindstream: Consider this example
14:56:20 [lindstream]
<img rel="depiction" src="me.jpg"/> creates no triple today
14:57:12 [lindstream]
<img rel="depiction" src="me.jpg"/> would create $currentSubject :depiction <me.jpg>
14:59:03 [Steven]
Ivan: Let's take a straw poll
14:59:25 [Steven]
... are we sympathetic to @src behaving like @href
14:59:33 [Steven]
-1
14:59:37 [ivan]
+1
14:59:37 [gkellogg]
+1
14:59:38 [scor]
+1
14:59:44 [lindstream]
+1 with reservation for me not remembering Ben Adida's needs
15:00:12 [lindstream]
q+
15:00:13 [MacTed]
+0
15:00:34 [Steven]
[ADJOURN]
15:00:40 [Zakim]
-MacTed
15:00:44 [Zakim]
-Ivan
15:00:45 [Zakim]
-gkellogg
15:00:46 [Steven]
zakim, list attendedes
15:00:52 [Zakim]
-scor
15:00:52 [Steven]
zakim, list attendees
15:00:54 [ivan]
rrsagent, draft minutes
15:00:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html ivan
15:00:58 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'list attendedes', Steven
15:01:00 [lindstream]
lindstream has left #rdfa
15:01:04 [Zakim]
-lindstream
15:01:10 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been lindstream, Ivan, gkellogg, MacTed, Steven, +1.781.866.aaaa, scor
15:01:19 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
15:01:26 [Zakim]
-Steven
15:01:27 [ivan]
trackbot, end telcon
15:01:27 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
15:01:28 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:01:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html trackbot
15:01:29 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
15:01:29 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-actions.rdf :
15:01:29 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Gkellog to write a reply to Jeni about issue 104, in line with the resolution [1]
15:01:29 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-irc#T14-48-58
15:01:29 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Gkellogg to write a reply to Jeni about issue 104, in line with the resolution [2]
15:01:29 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-irc#T14-49-05
15:01:34 [Zakim]
SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
15:01:36 [Zakim]
Attendees were lindstream, Ivan, gkellogg, MacTed, Steven, +1.781.866.aaaa, scor
15:02:00 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
15:02:00 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-irc
15:02:03 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:02:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
15:02:43 [Steven]
regrets+Manu
15:02:45 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:02:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
15:03:33 [ivan]
steven, manu or I will take care of the minutes cleanup
15:03:43 [Steven]
regrets: Manu, SHane
15:03:49 [Steven]
s/SH/Sh/
15:03:51 [Steven]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:03:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-rdfa-minutes.html Steven
15:11:12 [danbri]
danbri has joined #rdfa
15:18:41 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has joined #rdfa
15:18:46 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has left #rdfa
15:19:18 [danbri]
danbri has joined #rdfa
15:19:50 [danbri]
danbri has joined #rdfa
17:03:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfa
19:04:06 [danbri]
danbri has joined #rdfa