13:59:48 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/10/21-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/10/21-rdfa-irc ←
13:59:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:59:52 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
13:59:52 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute ←
13:59:53 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
13:59:53 <trackbot> Date: 21 October 2010
14:00:11 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started ←
14:00:18 <Zakim> +ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM ←
14:00:39 <Zakim> + +44.785.583.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.785.583.aaaa ←
14:00:41 <manu1> zakim, code?
Manu Sporny: zakim, code? ←
14:00:41 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), manu1
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), manu1 ←
14:00:42 <tinkster> Zakim, I am aaaa
Toby Inkster: Zakim, I am aaaa ←
14:00:44 <Zakim> +tinkster; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +tinkster; got it ←
14:00:51 <tinkster> zakim, mute me
Toby Inkster: zakim, mute me ←
14:00:51 <Zakim> tinkster should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: tinkster should now be muted ←
14:01:10 <Steven> zakim, who is here?
Steven Pemberton: zakim, who is here? ←
14:01:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see ShaneM, tinkster (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ShaneM, tinkster (muted) ←
14:01:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see Steven, Knud, Zakim, RRSAgent, ShaneM, tinkster, manu1, markbirbeck, trackbot, nathan
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Steven, Knud, Zakim, RRSAgent, ShaneM, tinkster, manu1, markbirbeck, trackbot, nathan ←
14:01:17 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-617
Steven Pemberton: zakim, dial steven-617 ←
14:01:17 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Steven; the call is being made ←
14:01:18 <Zakim> +Steven.a
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven.a ←
14:01:20 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:01:50 <manu1> zakim, I am [IPcaller]
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am [IPcaller] ←
14:01:50 <Zakim> ok, manu1, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, manu1, I now associate you with [IPcaller] ←
14:02:49 <Zakim> + +35387689aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +35387689aabb ←
14:02:51 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:02:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see ShaneM, tinkster (muted), Steven.a, [IPcaller], +35387689aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ShaneM, tinkster (muted), Steven.a, [IPcaller], +35387689aabb ←
14:03:01 <ShaneM> Present: Shane, Toby, Steven, Manu, MarkB, Knud, Nathan
14:03:03 <ShaneM> Regrets: Ivan, BenA, Benjamin
14:03:04 <ShaneM> Scribe: Shane
(Scribe set to Shane McCarron)
14:03:06 <ShaneM> scribenick: ShaneM
14:03:20 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0187.html
14:03:25 <Knud> zakim, I am aabb
Knud Möller: zakim, I am aabb ←
14:03:25 <Zakim> +Knud; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Knud; got it ←
14:03:26 <Zakim> +??P20
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P20 ←
14:03:27 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:03:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see ShaneM, tinkster (muted), Steven.a, [IPcaller], Knud, ??P20
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ShaneM, tinkster (muted), Steven.a, [IPcaller], Knud, ??P20 ←
14:03:32 <nathan> zakim, i am ?
Nathan Rixham: zakim, i am ? ←
14:03:34 <Zakim> +nathan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +nathan; got it ←
14:03:39 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:03:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see ShaneM, tinkster (muted), Steven.a, [IPcaller], Knud, nathan
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ShaneM, tinkster (muted), Steven.a, [IPcaller], Knud, nathan ←
14:03:51 <Knud> zakim, mute me
Knud Möller: zakim, mute me ←
14:03:54 <Zakim> Knud should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Knud should now be muted ←
14:03:56 <Zakim> +??P19
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P19 ←
14:03:57 <manu1> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
Manu Sporny: zakim, [IPcaller] is me ←
14:03:58 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
14:04:00 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:04:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see ShaneM, tinkster (muted), Steven.a, manu1, Knud (muted), nathan, ??P19
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ShaneM, tinkster (muted), Steven.a, manu1, Knud (muted), nathan, ??P19 ←
14:05:38 <ShaneM> TOPIC: Alternate proposals for RDFa Profile format
14:05:51 <ShaneM> Mail is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0238.html
Mail is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0238.html ←
14:05:56 <ShaneM> This is the current spec: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/
This is the current spec: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/ ←
14:06:14 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: big objection is to using RDF as the format for the Profile.
Mark Birbeck: big objection is to using RDF as the format for the Profile. ←
14:07:12 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: we already have a prefix mapping syntax; let's just take that to an external file.
Mark Birbeck: we already have a prefix mapping syntax; let's just take that to an external file. ←
14:07:44 <ShaneM> ... manu mentioned we would then need yet another parser. But that's not the case. Clearly an RDFa processor already has a parser for this format, since they must parse @prefix
... manu mentioned we would then need yet another parser. But that's not the case. Clearly an RDFa processor already has a parser for this format, since they must parse @prefix ←
14:07:57 <ShaneM> ... format is very straigthfroward.
... format is very straigthfroward. ←
14:08:56 <ShaneM> ... architecturally - the parsing of profiles would be done at a logical layer of the processor. You would not need to have the full stack in place. And the bottom of the architecture would not rely upon having the whole stack in place.
... architecturally - the parsing of profiles would be done at a logical layer of the processor. You would not need to have the full stack in place. And the bottom of the architecture would not rely upon having the whole stack in place. ←
14:09:42 <ShaneM> ... The syntax needs a way to express the default vocabulary. Proposal suggests using ':'. Syntax needs a way to express terms. Proposal suggests NCName without a trailing colon.
... The syntax needs a way to express the default vocabulary. Proposal suggests using ':'. Syntax needs a way to express terms. Proposal suggests NCName without a trailing colon. ←
14:11:18 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: Second proposal is to use RDFa but use @prefix, @vocab, and @xmlns attributes on the html element to define the aspects of the RDFa Profile
Mark Birbeck: Second proposal is to use RDFa but use @prefix, @vocab, and @xmlns attributes on the html element to define the aspects of the RDFa Profile ←
14:12:04 <ShaneM> ... Ivan asked why only on html element. No real reason, but we would need to say that the usual pushing and popping of definitions would not occur. Something else would need to happen.
... Ivan asked why only on html element. No real reason, but we would need to say that the usual pushing and popping of definitions would not occur. Something else would need to happen. ←
14:12:21 <ShaneM> ... this approach would not require a full RDFa parser and would not require any specialized triple parsing.
... this approach would not require a full RDFa parser and would not require any specialized triple parsing. ←
14:12:35 <tinkster> I also could live with first proposal, but don't especially like the second one.
Toby Inkster: I also could live with first proposal, but don't especially like the second one. ←
14:13:04 <ShaneM> Steven: I like the second proposal because it uses the same notation we already have.
Steven Pemberton: I like the second proposal because it uses the same notation we already have. ←
14:13:10 <manu1> q+ to discuss preference over current proposal
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss preference over current proposal ←
14:13:29 <tinkster> the second one means that third parties could use my non-profile RDFa documents as if they were a profile, which i might not like.
Toby Inkster: the second one means that third parties could use my non-profile RDFa documents as if they were a profile, which i might not like. ←
14:14:01 <ShaneM> manu1: we really need to know if each person prefers what is already in the spec, or would prefer one of these options.
Manu Sporny: we really need to know if each person prefers what is already in the spec, or would prefer one of these options. ←
14:14:52 <nathan> q+ to discuss option 2
Nathan Rixham: q+ to discuss option 2 ←
14:14:54 <ShaneM> ... if we go with proposal 2, we will need a way of defininig terms - like a term attribute
... if we go with proposal 2, we will need a way of defininig terms - like a term attribute ←
14:14:59 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
14:14:59 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss preference over current proposal
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to discuss preference over current proposal ←
14:15:13 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: the current proposal says that you can do term definitions in @prefix
Mark Birbeck: the current proposal says that you can do term definitions in @prefix ←
14:15:17 <manu1> ack nathan
Manu Sporny: ack nathan ←
14:15:17 <Zakim> nathan, you wanted to discuss option 2
Zakim IRC Bot: nathan, you wanted to discuss option 2 ←
14:15:43 <manu1> zakim, who is making noise?
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is making noise? ←
14:15:52 <ShaneM> Nathan: If we go for option 2, I am not really following why there is any benefit to it over using the current mechanism.
Nathan Rixham: If we go for option 2, I am not really following why there is any benefit to it over using the current mechanism. ←
14:15:53 <Zakim> manu1, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ShaneM (35%), manu1 (5%), nathan (4%)
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ShaneM (35%), manu1 (5%), nathan (4%) ←
14:15:59 <manu1> zakim, mute shanem
Manu Sporny: zakim, mute shanem ←
14:15:59 <Zakim> ShaneM should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM should now be muted ←
14:16:10 <ShaneM> zakim, unmute ShaneM
zakim, unmute ShaneM ←
14:16:10 <Zakim> ShaneM should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM should no longer be muted ←
14:16:56 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: there is no RDFa processor needed. You need a DOM. Requiring an RDFa processor will narrow the range of applications where this can be used.
Mark Birbeck: there is no RDFa processor needed. You need a DOM. Requiring an RDFa processor will narrow the range of applications where this can be used. ←
14:17:08 <ShaneM> ... you need a full RDFa Processor in order to process profiles.
... you need a full RDFa Processor in order to process profiles. ←
14:18:06 <ShaneM> Nathan: I don't really follow entirely. The first proposal lies with me a little better. If we are going to take it out and simplify it, we should simplify it all the way.
Nathan Rixham: I don't really follow entirely. The first proposal lies with me a little better. If we are going to take it out and simplify it, we should simplify it all the way. ←
14:19:43 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: I agree. However, just to explain. You might have a stack that does processing as a set of modules. Nothing in the architecture to date has required that the processor evaluate the triples it is extracting. So introducing RDFa Profiles as RDFa means that there is a major new requirement on the processor.
Mark Birbeck: I agree. However, just to explain. You might have a stack that does processing as a set of modules. Nothing in the architecture to date has required that the processor evaluate the triples it is extracting. So introducing RDFa Profiles as RDFa means that there is a major new requirement on the processor. ←
14:20:29 <ShaneM> Nathan: Okay - I understand now. I don't see that as a problem. I (perhaps wrongly) assume that the stack will always be there in an RDFa Processor anyway.
Nathan Rixham: Okay - I understand now. I don't see that as a problem. I (perhaps wrongly) assume that the stack will always be there in an RDFa Processor anyway. ←
14:21:14 <manu1> q+ to say that we don't restrict the RDFa Profile file format
Manu Sporny: q+ to say that we don't restrict the RDFa Profile file format ←
14:21:35 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: You're not wrong necessarily. But we already have people like OGP saying that they are only looking at meta elements in the head. So people are subsetting the structure already.
Mark Birbeck: You're not wrong necessarily. But we already have people like OGP saying that they are only looking at meta elements in the head. So people are subsetting the structure already. ←
14:21:37 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
14:21:37 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to say that we don't restrict the RDFa Profile file format
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to say that we don't restrict the RDFa Profile file format ←
14:21:56 <ShaneM> Steven: Hang on - people are using a small part of it. That doesn't mean they aren't implementing all of it.
Steven Pemberton: Hang on - people are using a small part of it. That doesn't mean they aren't implementing all of it. ←
14:22:51 <nathan> q+ to clarify point on existing profiles
Nathan Rixham: q+ to clarify point on existing profiles ←
14:23:11 <nathan> q-
Nathan Rixham: q- ←
14:23:46 <ShaneM> manu1: You can define things in other formats if you want - you are just required to also have a version in RDFa.
Manu Sporny: You can define things in other formats if you want - you are just required to also have a version in RDFa. ←
14:23:53 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: no - the spec doesn't allow this.
Mark Birbeck: no - the spec doesn't allow this. ←
14:24:10 <ShaneM> ShaneM: Yes, it does... It says "They may also be defined in other RDF serializations as well (e.g., RDF/XML [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR] or Turtle [TURTLE])."
Shane McCarron: Yes, it does... It says "They may also be defined in other RDF serializations as well (e.g., RDF/XML [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR] or Turtle [TURTLE])." ←
14:24:21 <ShaneM> ... oh. wait. no. that does not permit, for example, proposal 1 nor proposal 2.
... oh. wait. no. that does not permit, for example, proposal 1 nor proposal 2. ←
14:24:45 <ShaneM> manu1: Nathan, of the current text or the two new proposals, which do you really want?
Manu Sporny: Nathan, of the current text or the two new proposals, which do you really want? ←
14:25:15 <manu1> q+
Manu Sporny: q+ ←
14:25:57 <ShaneM> Nathan: I would prefer to keep it the way it is but open it up to additional alternate formats (e.g. turtle).
Nathan Rixham: I would prefer to keep it the way it is but open it up to additional alternate formats (e.g. turtle). ←
14:26:01 <tinkster> I certainly already support RDFa, Turtle, N-Triples, RDF/XML and Talis' RDF/JSON format.
Toby Inkster: I certainly already support RDFa, Turtle, N-Triples, RDF/XML and Talis' RDF/JSON format. ←
14:26:02 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
14:26:31 <ShaneM> manu1: I agree with Nathan. I prefer the way we are doing it in the current spec. But I see no reason to limit alternate formats.
Manu Sporny: I agree with Nathan. I prefer the way we are doing it in the current spec. But I see no reason to limit alternate formats. ←
14:26:45 <tinkster> zakim, unmute me
Toby Inkster: zakim, unmute me ←
14:26:45 <Zakim> tinkster should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: tinkster should no longer be muted ←
14:27:06 <ShaneM> manu1: tinkster do you support these for profiles?
Manu Sporny: tinkster do you support these for profiles? ←
14:27:15 <ShaneM> tinkster: Yes - I support all those formats for profiles.
Toby Inkster: Yes - I support all those formats for profiles. ←
14:27:22 <ShaneM> manu1: What about non-RDF serializations?
Manu Sporny: What about non-RDF serializations? ←
14:27:52 <ShaneM> tinkster: Well... anything can be thought of as an RDF serialization... Something that can be used with only limited types of data.
Toby Inkster: Well... anything can be thought of as an RDF serialization... Something that can be used with only limited types of data. ←
14:28:41 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: I don't know if that is true... when you create a RDF serialization you are saying that you want to support RDF using it. Just because you can put on a special pair of glasses and interpret something as RDF doesn't mean it is really an RDF serialization.
Mark Birbeck: I don't know if that is true... when you create a RDF serialization you are saying that you want to support RDF using it. Just because you can put on a special pair of glasses and interpret something as RDF doesn't mean it is really an RDF serialization. ←
14:29:05 <ShaneM> manu1: tinkster of the proposals which do you prefer?
Manu Sporny: tinkster of the proposals which do you prefer? ←
14:29:11 <tinkster> zakim, mute me
Toby Inkster: zakim, mute me ←
14:29:11 <Zakim> tinkster should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: tinkster should now be muted ←
14:29:33 <tinkster> #1: ivan's; #2 mark's flat text file; #3: mark's html format
Toby Inkster: #1: ivan's; #2 mark's flat text file; #3: mark's html format ←
14:30:02 <manu1> Shane: I prefer the text in the document today, however I would be happy to allow alternate non-RDF formats.
Shane McCarron: I prefer the text in the document today, however I would be happy to allow alternate non-RDF formats. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:30:36 <manu1> Shane: The document says RDF serialization, I think it was a mistake to put it in there.
Shane McCarron: The document says RDF serialization, I think it was a mistake to put it in there. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:30:58 <nathan> q+
Nathan Rixham: q+ ←
14:31:38 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: I disagree. the text said 'RDF serialization' on purpose.
Mark Birbeck: I disagree. the text said 'RDF serialization' on purpose. ←
14:31:48 <manu1> Manu: I agree, it was a mistake to put it in there.
Manu Sporny: I agree, it was a mistake to put it in there. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:31:52 <ShaneM> manu1: No - it is a mistake. You can do anything with the alternate formats.
Manu Sporny: No - it is a mistake. You can do anything with the alternate formats. ←
14:32:32 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: This is not generic in the document. There are lots of rules that seem to require it to be an RDF Serialization.
Mark Birbeck: This is not generic in the document. There are lots of rules that seem to require it to be an RDF Serialization. ←
14:32:32 <manu1> ack nathan
Manu Sporny: ack nathan ←
14:32:48 <manu1> Shane: Mark, that sentence was there so you could do JSON.
Shane McCarron: Mark, that sentence was there so you could do JSON. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:33:52 <ShaneM> Nathan: I wanted to clarify... I think that the current document really really meant that alternate formats had to be an RDF serialization.
Nathan Rixham: I wanted to clarify... I think that the current document really really meant that alternate formats had to be an RDF serialization. ←
14:34:38 <ShaneM> ... are we saying that we are going to loosen this up so much that you wouldn't need an RDF thing at all?
... are we saying that we are going to loosen this up so much that you wouldn't need an RDF thing at all? ←
14:34:53 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: Yeah - it is not clear what this would mean if it were not RDF.
Mark Birbeck: Yeah - it is not clear what this would mean if it were not RDF. ←
14:35:33 <ShaneM> Nathan: I cant see how we can loosen this up all the way.
Nathan Rixham: I cant see how we can loosen this up all the way. ←
14:35:41 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about alternate formats
q+ to talk about alternate formats ←
14:35:52 <manu1> ack shanem
Manu Sporny: ack shanem ←
14:35:52 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about alternate formats
Zakim IRC Bot: ShaneM, you wanted to talk about alternate formats ←
14:36:11 <ShaneM> ... requiring that alternates are in any format and it be magically interpreted seems challenging.
... requiring that alternates are in any format and it be magically interpreted seems challenging. ←
14:36:47 <manu1> Shane: The intent of that was not that every RDF processor would understand arbitrary formats, every RDFa Processor is required to understand the RDFa Profile (input format)
Shane McCarron: The intent of that was not that every RDF processor would understand arbitrary formats, every RDFa Processor is required to understand the RDFa Profile (input format) [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:37:16 <manu1> Shane: If your implementation chose to support other formats, that's fine, great, go ahead - you can do that if you want.
Shane McCarron: If your implementation chose to support other formats, that's fine, great, go ahead - you can do that if you want. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:37:20 <Knud> +1 what Shane is saying: the critical thing is the "must be defined in an approved RDFa Host Language", right?
Knud Möller: +1 what Shane is saying: the critical thing is the "must be defined in an approved RDFa Host Language", right? ←
14:37:30 <manu1> Shane: There is no requirement on an RDFa processor to understand all formats.
Shane McCarron: There is no requirement on an RDFa processor to understand all formats. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:37:40 <ShaneM> Yes, Knud.
Yes, Knud. ←
14:37:50 <Knud> zakim, unmute me
Knud Möller: zakim, unmute me ←
14:37:50 <Zakim> Knud should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Knud should no longer be muted ←
14:38:11 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:38:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see ShaneM, tinkster (muted), Steven.a, manu1, Knud, nathan, markbirbeck
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ShaneM, tinkster (muted), Steven.a, manu1, Knud, nathan, markbirbeck ←
14:38:11 <ShaneM> Knud: I am happy with what is in the specification at the moment.
Knud Möller: I am happy with what is in the specification at the moment. ←
14:38:28 <ShaneM> ... I do see mark's potential problem with circularity.. but I don't see a big problem with that.
... I do see mark's potential problem with circularity.. but I don't see a big problem with that. ←
14:38:48 <ShaneM> ... if we are making any change at all, I would go with mark's first proposal. I see no value in the second proposal.
... if we are making any change at all, I would go with mark's first proposal. I see no value in the second proposal. ←
14:38:58 <ShaneM> ... so my preference is to leave the spec alone.
... so my preference is to leave the spec alone. ←
14:39:11 <Knud> zakim, mute me
Knud Möller: zakim, mute me ←
14:39:11 <Zakim> Knud should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Knud should now be muted ←
14:39:24 <ShaneM> Steven: I am okay with leaving the spec alone. I have no problem with proposal 2.
Steven Pemberton: I am okay with leaving the spec alone. I have no problem with proposal 2. ←
14:40:01 <ShaneM> ... there are two sorts of simple. I am happier for an author to find it simpler than for the implementor.
... there are two sorts of simple. I am happier for an author to find it simpler than for the implementor. ←
14:40:51 <ShaneM> manu1: mark, would you like to say anything? I am wondering if we can split this into two proposals. Which of the three options do we prefer? And should we loosen the text further about alternate formats?
Manu Sporny: mark, would you like to say anything? I am wondering if we can split this into two proposals. Which of the three options do we prefer? And should we loosen the text further about alternate formats? ←
14:40:58 <ShaneM> Shane: +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:41:40 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: Hearing steven's comments I think that my second proposal is better.
Mark Birbeck: Hearing steven's comments I think that my second proposal is better. ←
14:42:24 <ShaneM> ... the pure text approach requires more work for authors. There is also an issue with the content type if looking at the first proposal.
... the pure text approach requires more work for authors. There is also an issue with the content type if looking at the first proposal. ←
14:42:28 <tinkster> n-triples uses text/plain :-(
Toby Inkster: n-triples uses text/plain :-( ←
14:42:37 <ShaneM> ... so I am now moving towards the second proposal.
... so I am now moving towards the second proposal. ←
14:43:53 <ShaneM> ... I think that the current text should not be an entry level. The leap to create a profile for an RDFa author is wide using the current mechanism. Proposal 2 has a much lower barrier to entry.
... I think that the current text should not be an entry level. The leap to create a profile for an RDFa author is wide using the current mechanism. Proposal 2 has a much lower barrier to entry. ←
14:44:02 <ShaneM> ... the current text is off putting.
... the current text is off putting. ←
14:46:47 <nathan> q+ to add a quick note on marks comments
Nathan Rixham: q+ to add a quick note on marks comments ←
14:46:55 <manu1> q+ to mention issues
Manu Sporny: q+ to mention issues ←
14:47:05 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: Can we also consider a 4th option: proposal 2 OR the current text?
Mark Birbeck: Can we also consider a 4th option: proposal 2 OR the current text? ←
14:47:08 <manu1> ack nathan
Manu Sporny: ack nathan ←
14:47:08 <Zakim> nathan, you wanted to add a quick note on marks comments
Zakim IRC Bot: nathan, you wanted to add a quick note on marks comments ←
14:47:37 <tinkster> I think that in any case we need to specify at least one canonical format, for interop reasons.
Toby Inkster: I think that in any case we need to specify at least one canonical format, for interop reasons. ←
14:47:51 <ShaneM> Nathan: I quite like the idea of offering the choice.
Nathan Rixham: I quite like the idea of offering the choice. ←
14:48:10 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
14:48:10 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to mention issues
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to mention issues ←
14:48:17 <ShaneM> ... its great to be able to just pull in prefix mappings from another document.
... its great to be able to just pull in prefix mappings from another document. ←
14:49:07 <ShaneM> manu1: the problem with this is we also need to add @term - and that means we cannot close on this today.
Manu Sporny: the problem with this is we also need to add @term - and that means we cannot close on this today. ←
14:49:12 <manu1> q+ to discuss other issues
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss other issues ←
14:49:24 <ShaneM> Nathan: Just forget about the terms. Only grab the prefixes from the other document.
Nathan Rixham: Just forget about the terms. Only grab the prefixes from the other document. ←
14:49:26 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
14:49:26 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss other issues
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to discuss other issues ←
14:50:22 <ShaneM> manu1: what happens if someone wants to use dcterms as a prefix in their RDFa Profile document? It means that the prefix gets included in the collection even if the RDFa Profile author didn't intend it to be.
Manu Sporny: what happens if someone wants to use dcterms as a prefix in their RDFa Profile document? It means that the prefix gets included in the collection even if the RDFa Profile author didn't intend it to be. ←
14:50:47 <ShaneM> ... there are potential knock-on effects from a decision like this. We need to look at them before proceeding if we introduce that behavior.
... there are potential knock-on effects from a decision like this. We need to look at them before proceeding if we introduce that behavior. ←
14:51:04 <ShaneM> manu1: I am fine with offering the 4th choice.
Manu Sporny: I am fine with offering the 4th choice. ←
14:51:42 <manu1> PROPOSAL: RDFa Working group prefers the flat-file text format as the primary mechanism for expressing RDFa Profiles.
PROPOSED: RDFa Working group prefers the flat-file text format as the primary mechanism for expressing RDFa Profiles. ←
14:52:02 <ShaneM> Shane: -1
Shane McCarron: -1 ←
14:52:05 <tinkster> +0
Toby Inkster: +0 ←
14:52:06 <nathan> -1
Nathan Rixham: -1 ←
14:52:09 <manu1> -1
Manu Sporny: -1 ←
14:52:14 <Steven> -1
Steven Pemberton: -1 ←
14:52:23 <Knud> should we give a +1 for every proposal we would support? Or only give one +1?
Knud Möller: should we give a +1 for every proposal we would support? Or only give one +1? ←
14:52:50 <Knud> +0
Knud Möller: +0 ←
14:53:40 <ShaneM> mark voted +0
mark voted +0 ←
14:54:00 <markbirbeck> +0
Mark Birbeck: +0 ←
14:54:05 <manu1> PROPOSAL: RDFa Working group prefers the usage of @prefix and @term in the RDFa Profile document to express prefix and term mappings.
PROPOSED: RDFa Working group prefers the usage of @prefix and @term in the RDFa Profile document to express prefix and term mappings. ←
14:54:45 <tinkster> -1 (I don't want people using profile="http://tobyinkster.co.uk/")
Toby Inkster: -1 (I don't want people using profile="http://tobyinkster.co.uk/") ←
14:55:19 <markbirbeck> +1
Mark Birbeck: +1 ←
14:55:21 <Knud> -1
Knud Möller: -1 ←
14:55:29 <manu1> -1
Manu Sporny: -1 ←
14:55:30 <nathan> +0
Nathan Rixham: +0 ←
14:55:34 <ShaneM> Shane: -1 (I don't want random prefixes to get included and I don't want real RDFa Profiles mis interpreted)
Shane McCarron: -1 (I don't want random prefixes to get included and I don't want real RDFa Profiles mis interpreted) ←
14:55:37 <Steven> +0
Steven Pemberton: +0 ←
14:56:32 <manu1> PROPOSAL: RDFa Working group prefers the current text in the RDFa Core document as a way of expressing RDFa Profile document.
PROPOSED: RDFa Working group prefers the current text in the RDFa Core document as a way of expressing RDFa Profile document. ←
14:56:43 <manu1> PROPOSAL: RDFa Working group prefers the current text in the RDFa Core document as a way of expressing RDFa Profile documents.
PROPOSED: RDFa Working group prefers the current text in the RDFa Core document as a way of expressing RDFa Profile documents. ←
14:56:45 <ShaneM> Shane: +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:56:47 <Steven> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20100803/#s_profiles
Steven Pemberton: http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20100803/#s_profiles ←
14:56:50 <tinkster> +1
Toby Inkster: +1 ←
14:57:02 <nathan> +1
Nathan Rixham: +1 ←
14:57:05 <tinkster> ok, then +0.5
Toby Inkster: ok, then +0.5 ←
14:57:05 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
14:57:09 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
14:57:11 <markbirbeck> -1 (Don't like an RDF-only solution.)
Mark Birbeck: -1 (Don't like an RDF-only solution.) ←
14:57:39 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:59:30 <manu1> PROPOSAL: RDFa Working group prefers supporting the current text in the RDFa Core document in addition to @prefix and @vocab.
PROPOSED: RDFa Working group prefers supporting the current text in the RDFa Core document in addition to @prefix and @vocab. ←
14:59:40 <tinkster> -1 too ambiguous
Toby Inkster: -1 too ambiguous ←
14:59:55 <manu1> PROPOSAL: RDFa Working group prefers supporting the current text in the RDFa Core document in addition to @prefix and @vocab on the HTML element.
PROPOSED: RDFa Working group prefers supporting the current text in the RDFa Core document in addition to @prefix and @vocab on the HTML element. ←
15:00:02 <tinkster> -1
Toby Inkster: -1 ←
15:00:18 <Zakim> -tinkster
Zakim IRC Bot: -tinkster ←
15:02:02 <ShaneM> Nathan: are we requiring that both must be supported? or are we requring that the current text be supported, but that someone MAY also support the @prefix and @vocab on the HTML element?
Nathan Rixham: are we requiring that both must be supported? or are we requring that the current text be supported, but that someone MAY also support the @prefix and @vocab on the HTML element? ←
15:02:10 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: I am quite happy if we require it support both.
Mark Birbeck: I am quite happy if we require it support both. ←
15:02:53 <ShaneM> Nathan: Do we then need another option?
Nathan Rixham: Do we then need another option? ←
15:03:42 <ShaneM> manu1: I think that need to support both. If we make it optional there would be interoperability issues. If both are permitted then anyone can expressing profiles using @prefix and @vocab
Manu Sporny: I think that need to support both. If we make it optional there would be interoperability issues. If both are permitted then anyone can expressing profiles using @prefix and @vocab ←
15:03:56 <manu1> PROPOSAL: RDFa Working group prefers supporting the current text in the RDFa Core document in addition to @prefix and @vocab on the HTML element.
PROPOSED: RDFa Working group prefers supporting the current text in the RDFa Core document in addition to @prefix and @vocab on the HTML element. ←
15:04:09 <manu1> -1
Manu Sporny: -1 ←
15:04:10 <ShaneM> Shane: -1 (without a different media type or announcement mechanism I wouldn't know as a processor implementor which format I was being handed)
Shane McCarron: -1 (without a different media type or announcement mechanism I wouldn't know as a processor implementor which format I was being handed) ←
15:04:10 <Steven> +0
Steven Pemberton: +0 ←
15:04:11 <Knud> +0
Knud Möller: +0 ←
15:04:13 <markbirbeck> +1
Mark Birbeck: +1 ←
15:04:14 <tinkster> -1 still
Toby Inkster: -1 still ←
15:04:19 <nathan> +0.5
Nathan Rixham: +0.5 ←
15:04:42 <markbirbeck> @ShaneM: Simple...there would be no triples in one.
Mark Birbeck: @ShaneM: Simple...there would be no triples in one. ←
15:05:00 <manu1> RESOLVED: RDFa Working group prefers the current text in the RDFa Core document as a way of expressing RDFa Profile documents.
RESOLVED: RDFa Working group prefers the current text in the RDFa Core document as a way of expressing RDFa Profile documents. ←
15:05:01 <ShaneM> manu1: It looks as if option 3 was preferred. Anyone disagree?
Manu Sporny: It looks as if option 3 was preferred. Anyone disagree? ←
15:05:57 <ShaneM> manu1: does anyone need to leave?
Manu Sporny: does anyone need to leave? ←
15:06:06 <ShaneM> Steven: I can't stay much longer?
Steven Pemberton: I can't stay much longer? ←
15:06:21 <ShaneM> manu1: Do you have any objections to the proposed resolutions on the outstanding issues?
Manu Sporny: Do you have any objections to the proposed resolutions on the outstanding issues? ←
15:06:31 <ShaneM> Steven: Not sufficiently to get worked up about.
Steven Pemberton: Not sufficiently to get worked up about. ←
15:06:48 <ShaneM> manu1: Do you support going to last call with any changes that we agree to today?
Manu Sporny: Do you support going to last call with any changes that we agree to today? ←
15:06:50 <ShaneM> Steven: Yep.
Steven Pemberton: Yep. ←
15:06:50 <nathan> I have to leave in 5/10 minutes but am happy with all other issues (no strong preferences)
Nathan Rixham: I have to leave in 5/10 minutes but am happy with all other issues (no strong preferences) ←
15:08:13 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Provide language in the RDFa Core spec to allow non-RDF serializations for RDFa Profile documents.
PROPOSED: Provide language in the RDFa Core spec to allow non-RDF serializations for RDFa Profile documents. ←
15:08:17 <ShaneM> My proposed language is "They may also be defined in formats as well (e.g., JSON, RDF/XML [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR] or Turtle [TURTLE])."
My proposed language is "They may also be defined in other formats as well (e.g., JSON, RDF/XML [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR] or Turtle [TURTLE])." ←
15:08:26 <ShaneM> s/formats/other formats/
15:08:48 <tinkster> +1
Toby Inkster: +1 ←
15:09:09 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Provide language in the RDFa Core spec to allow non-RDFa, and non-RDF serializations for RDFa Profile documents.
PROPOSED: Provide language in the RDFa Core spec to allow non-RDFa, and non-RDF serializations for RDFa Profile documents. ←
15:09:09 <ShaneM> Shane: +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
15:09:10 <tinkster> (and +1 to ShaneM's proposed wording)
Toby Inkster: (and +1 to ShaneM's proposed wording) ←
15:09:11 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
15:09:12 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
15:09:29 <tinkster> +1
Toby Inkster: +1 ←
15:09:48 <tinkster> +1's for everyone!
Toby Inkster: +1's for everyone! ←
15:09:53 <ShaneM> "When an RDFa Profile is defined using an approved RDFa Host Language, the processing rules are:"
"When an RDFa Profile is defined using an approved RDFa Host Language, or any other RDF serialisation, the processing rules are:" ←
15:09:55 <nathan> +1 (for well-defined other types, for now that's only other rdf serializations)
Nathan Rixham: +1 (for well-defined other types, for now that's only other rdf serializations) ←
15:10:44 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:11:00 <tinkster> s/an approved RDFa Host Language/an approved RDFa Host Language, or any other RDF serialisation/
15:11:16 <Knud> "When an RDFa Profile is defined using an approved RDFa Host Language - or any other RDF serialization - the processing rules are:"
Knud Möller: "When an RDFa Profile is defined using an approved RDFa Host Language - or any other RDF serialization - the processing rules are:" ←
15:11:22 <tinkster> sorry, I don't know if that altered the logs - didn't mean to - force of habit.
Toby Inkster: sorry, I don't know if that altered the logs - didn't mean to - force of habit. ←
15:11:51 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: there are potentially issues with this.
Mark Birbeck: there are potentially issues with this. ←
15:11:59 <ShaneM> manu1: are these editorial or substantive?
Manu Sporny: are these editorial or substantive? ←
15:12:02 <tinkster> what i mean is that we don't want people saying, "I'm using Turtle, so I'll come up with a whole new vocab".
Toby Inkster: what i mean is that we don't want people saying, "I'm using Turtle, so I'll come up with a whole new vocab". ←
15:12:14 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: They are probably editorial.
Mark Birbeck: They are probably editorial. ←
15:12:49 <ShaneM> ShaneM: I agree with tinkster. if you are using an RDF serialisation... you need to use these predicates.
Shane McCarron: I agree with tinkster. if you are using an RDF serialisation... you need to use these predicates. ←
15:13:08 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: (says same thing ShaneM typed ;-)
Mark Birbeck: (says same thing ShaneM typed ;-) ←
15:13:51 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: don't worry about word smithing now - Shane will get it right.
Mark Birbeck: don't worry about word smithing now - Shane will get it right. ←
15:13:55 <ShaneM> (manu word smiths anyway)
(manu word smiths anyway) ←
15:13:58 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Provide language in the RDFa Core spec to allow non-RDFa, and non-RDF serializations for RDFa Profile documents. If implementers use RDF to express prefix and term mappings, they MUST use the vocabulary defined in the RDFa Core specification.
PROPOSED: Provide language in the RDFa Core spec to allow non-RDFa, and non-RDF serializations for RDFa Profile documents. If implementers use RDF to express prefix and term mappings, they MUST use the vocabulary defined in the RDFa Core specification. ←
15:14:17 <ShaneM> Shane: +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
15:14:18 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:14:21 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
15:14:23 <markbirbeck> +1
Mark Birbeck: +1 ←
15:14:32 <tinkster> +1
Toby Inkster: +1 ←
15:14:38 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
15:14:42 <nathan> +1 (well defined non-RDF though)
Nathan Rixham: +1 (well defined non-RDF though) ←
15:14:50 <manu1> RESOLVED: Provide language in the RDFa Core spec to allow non-RDFa, and non-RDF serializations for RDFa Profile documents. If implementers use RDF to express prefix and term mappings, they MUST use the vocabulary defined in the RDFa Core specification.
RESOLVED: Provide language in the RDFa Core spec to allow non-RDFa, and non-RDF serializations for RDFa Profile documents. If implementers use RDF to express prefix and term mappings, they MUST use the vocabulary defined in the RDFa Core specification. ←
15:15:12 <Zakim> -nathan
Zakim IRC Bot: -nathan ←
15:15:35 <manu1> Topic: Discussing any open objections
15:15:47 <tinkster> maybe link to a wiki page from the spec where people can document non-RDF implementations for easy discovery. can we link to wiki pages in a rec track document?
Toby Inkster: maybe link to a wiki page from the spec where people can document non-RDF implementations for easy discovery. can we link to wiki pages in a rec track document? ←
15:15:51 <manu1> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0194.html
Manu Sporny: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0194.html ←
15:16:18 <ShaneM> yes tinkster - we can include a non-normative reference to anything
yes tinkster - we can include a non-normative reference to anything ←
15:16:55 <ShaneM> manu1: W.r.t. TERM processing - do a case sensitive check first... if that fails, then do a case insensitive match. Any objections?
Manu Sporny: W.r.t. TERM processing - do a case sensitive check first... if that fails, then do a case insensitive match. Any objections? ←
15:17:00 <Knud> no
Knud Möller: no ←
15:17:01 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: no - its a good idea.
Mark Birbeck: no - its a good idea. ←
15:17:06 <ShaneM> its fine
its fine ←
15:17:13 <tinkster> +1
Toby Inkster: +1 ←
15:17:21 <manu1> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0231.html
Manu Sporny: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0231.html ←
15:17:26 <tinkster> I've already released a version of my parser that supports it.
Toby Inkster: I've already released a version of my parser that supports it. ←
15:19:16 <ShaneM> manu1: is the proposed text from Ivan okay?
Manu Sporny: is the proposed text from Ivan okay? ←
15:19:42 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: its not as clear as I would like... some of the prior text that was proposed was just wrong. The new proposal is at least not wrong.
Mark Birbeck: its not as clear as I would like... some of the prior text that was proposed was just wrong. The new proposal is at least not wrong. ←
15:19:49 <ShaneM> manu1: any strong objections?
Manu Sporny: any strong objections? ←
15:19:56 <ShaneM> I SOOOO don't care
I SOOOO don't care ←
15:20:22 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: ShaneM pointed out that this should really be in the RDFa API document.
Mark Birbeck: ShaneM pointed out that this should really be in the RDFa API document. ←
15:20:34 <ShaneM> manu1: are you saying you want to see a proposal to include that information in the RDFa API spec?
Manu Sporny: are you saying you want to see a proposal to include that information in the RDFa API spec? ←
15:20:54 <ShaneM> markbirbeck: ... only if it wouldn't hold anything up.
Mark Birbeck: ... only if it wouldn't hold anything up. ←
15:21:32 <ShaneM> manu1: I just don't think this is an issue that people feel very strongly about. Moreover, we have not received any complaints about it from the public.
Manu Sporny: I just don't think this is an issue that people feel very strongly about. Moreover, we have not received any complaints about it from the public. ←
15:21:38 <tinkster> I think we *should* include an example that has changed bnode identifiers, but i don't think this debate is worth the time we've spent on it.
Toby Inkster: I think we *should* include an example that has changed bnode identifiers, but i don't think this debate is worth the time we've spent on it. ←
15:21:53 <ShaneM> ... if this is text that Ivan is fine with, then we might as well go ahead.
... if this is text that Ivan is fine with, then we might as well go ahead. ←
15:22:05 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Accept Ivan's edited changes to Mark's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0231.html
PROPOSED: Accept Ivan's edited changes to Mark's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0231.html ←
15:22:22 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-37 - accept Ivan's edited changes to Mark's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0231.html
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-37 - accept Ivan's edited changes to Mark's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0231.html ←
15:22:28 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:22:37 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
15:22:38 <markbirbeck> +0
Mark Birbeck: +0 ←
15:22:41 <markbirbeck> :)
Mark Birbeck: :) ←
15:22:44 <ShaneM> Shane: +0
Shane McCarron: +0 ←
15:23:09 <ShaneM> I note that this text fails the grandmother text.
I note that this text fails the grandmother text. ←
15:23:09 <tinkster> +1
Toby Inkster: +1 ←
15:23:11 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
15:23:16 <ShaneM> I mean test.
I mean test. ←
15:23:30 <manu1> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-37 - accept Ivan's edited changes to Mark's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0231.html
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-37 - accept Ivan's edited changes to Mark's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0231.html ←
15:23:44 <ShaneM> TOPIC: Can we take RDFa Core 1.1 to last call?
15:24:09 <tinkster> i still have all these mostly editorial issues - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0215.html
Toby Inkster: i still have all these mostly editorial issues - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0215.html ←
15:24:51 <tinkster> 8.3.1.3 seems pretty important.
Toby Inkster: 8.3.1.3 seems pretty important. ←
15:25:01 <tinkster> it's more than editorial i think.
Toby Inkster: it's more than editorial i think. ←
15:25:41 <ShaneM> all of tinkster comments are correct and I will make those changes.
all of tinkster comments are correct and I will make those changes. ←
15:26:24 <tinkster> ok, then i'm happy to go to last call then.
Toby Inkster: ok, then i'm happy to go to last call then. ←
15:26:59 <ShaneM> I do have a question tinkster - why /resource/ instead of /page/ ? /resource redirects to /page
I do have a question tinkster - why /resource/ instead of /page/ ? /resource redirects to /page ←
15:28:16 <ShaneM> never mind - I changed it back
never mind - I changed it back ←
15:28:44 <tinkster> /resource/Albert_Einstein identiifies a person, who was born in the 19th century. /page/Albert_Einstein identifies a page that was created in the 21st century.
Toby Inkster: /resource/Albert_Einstein identiifies a person, who was born in the 19th century. /page/Albert_Einstein identifies a page that was created in the 21st century. ←
15:29:03 <markbirbeck> :)
Mark Birbeck: :) ←
15:29:14 <tinkster> the 303 redirect from a URI identifying a "thing" to a URI describing the thing is a common linked data pattern.
Toby Inkster: the 303 redirect from a URI identifying a "thing" to a URI describing the thing is a common linked data pattern. ←
15:29:18 <manu1> PROPOSAL: RDFa Core 1.1 should proceed to Last Call with a publication date of October 26th 2010.
PROPOSED: RDFa Core 1.1 should proceed to Last Call with a publication date of October 26th 2010. ←
15:29:37 <ShaneM> Shane: +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
15:29:38 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:29:39 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
15:29:40 <Knud> +1
Knud Möller: +1 ←
15:29:44 <tinkster> +1
Toby Inkster: +1 ←
15:29:45 <markbirbeck> +1
Mark Birbeck: +1 ←
15:30:00 <manu1> Ivan did a +1 via e-mail
Manu Sporny: Ivan did a +1 via e-mail ←
15:30:05 <manu1> Nathan: +1
Nathan Rixham: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:30:19 <manu1> RESOLVED: RDFa Core 1.1 should proceed to Last Call with a publication date of October 26th 2010.
RESOLVED: RDFa Core 1.1 should proceed to Last Call with a publication date of October 26th 2010. ←
15:30:59 <markbirbeck> @tinkster: And with RDFa, /page/Albert_Einstein would identify a /graph/ that was created in the 21st Century, that's /about/ Albert Einstein. :)
Mark Birbeck: @tinkster: And with RDFa, /page/Albert_Einstein would identify a /graph/ that was created in the 21st Century, that's /about/ Albert Einstein. :) ←
15:31:50 <markbirbeck> Well done everyone!
Mark Birbeck: Well done everyone! ←
15:32:17 <Zakim> -markbirbeck
Zakim IRC Bot: -markbirbeck ←
15:32:18 <Zakim> -ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: -ShaneM ←
15:32:19 <Zakim> -Steven.a
Zakim IRC Bot: -Steven.a ←
15:32:23 <Zakim> -manu1
Zakim IRC Bot: -manu1 ←
15:32:24 <Zakim> -Knud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Knud ←
15:32:24 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended ←
15:32:26 <Zakim> Attendees were ShaneM, +44.785.583.aaaa, tinkster, Steven.a, +35387689aabb, Knud, nathan, manu1, markbirbeck
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were ShaneM, +44.785.583.aaaa, tinkster, Steven.a, +35387689aabb, Knud, nathan, manu1, markbirbeck ←
Formatted by CommonScribe