IRC log of rdfa on 2010-07-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:53:46 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #rdfa

13:53:46 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/07/15-rdfa-irc

13:57:00 [Knud]

Knud has joined #rdfa

13:57:24 [manu]

trackbot, prepare telecon

13:57:26 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs world

13:57:28 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be 7332

13:57:28 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes

13:57:29 [trackbot]

Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference

13:57:29 [trackbot]

Date: 15 July 2010

13:57:47 [manu]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0080.html

13:57:56 [manu]

Chair: Manu

13:58:17 [manu]

Regrets: Benjamin, BenA, MarkB

13:58:26 [Steven_]

Maybe we can briefly discuss XHTML Basic + RDFa if we have time

13:58:27 [ShaneM]

ShaneM has joined #rdfa

13:58:37 [Zakim]

SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started

13:58:43 [Knud]

Is the British dial-in not working?

13:58:44 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

13:58:48 [manu]

zakim, I am [IP

13:58:48 [Zakim]

ok, manu, I now associate you with [IPcaller]

13:58:57 [manu]

zakim, code

13:58:57 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'code', manu

13:59:02 [manu]

zakim, code?

13:59:02 [Zakim]

the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), manu

13:59:12 [Knud]

ah, thanks

13:59:14 [Zakim]

+ShaneM

13:59:32 [Knud]

needs to be in the Telco Agenda mail! :)

13:59:49 [Zakim]

+tinkster

14:00:11 [ivan]

zakim, dial ivan-voip

14:00:11 [Zakim]

ok, ivan; the call is being made

14:00:13 [Zakim]

+Ivan

14:00:55 [manu]

zakim, who is on the call?

14:00:55 [Zakim]

On the phone I see [IPcaller], ShaneM, tinkster, Ivan

14:01:02 [manu]

zakim, I am [IP

14:01:02 [Zakim]

ok, manu, I now associate you with [IPcaller]

14:01:07 [manu]

zakim, who is on the call?

14:01:07 [Zakim]

On the phone I see [IPcaller], ShaneM, tinkster, Ivan

14:01:07 [Steven_]

Kbud, it was - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0038.html

14:01:17 [Steven_]

s/Kbud/Knud

14:01:23 [Steven_]

zakim, dial steven-617

14:01:23 [Zakim]

ok, Steven_; the call is being made

14:01:25 [Zakim]

+Steven

14:02:01 [Zakim]

+ +3539149aaaa

14:02:43 [Knud]

(+44.203.318.0479: "all lines are busy")

14:03:18 [manu]

zakim, who is on the call?

14:03:18 [Zakim]

On the phone I see [IPcaller], ShaneM, tinkster, Ivan, Steven, +3539149aaaa

14:03:42 [manu]

scribenick: manu

14:03:45 [manu]

Scribe: Manu

14:03:59 [manu]

manu: Any additions to the agenda?

14:04:24 [manu]

steven: Can we can talk about XHTML Basic and RDFa?

14:04:25 [ivan]

q+

14:04:30 [manu]

Topic: XHTML Basic and RDFa

14:04:42 [manu]

steven: There has been discussion about the XHTML Basic checker

14:04:58 [manu]

steven: People have been complaining about checker complaining about use of RDFa.

14:05:15 [manu]

steven: Issue is that the checker is based on W3C spec, so changing it isn't as trivial as one would want.

14:05:26 [manu]

steven: We could provide an XHTML+RDFa DTD, that would resolve the issue.

14:06:22 [manu]

toby: Does the XHTML+RDFa 1.1 rec include a DTD? Could XHTML+RDFa use the DTD for XHTML+RDFa 1.1?

14:06:24 [manu]

ack ivan

14:06:39 [manu]

ivan: Team discussion - just having just the DTD doesn't solve the problem of the mobile checker.

14:06:57 [manu]

ivan: people that are behind mobile web checker are looking at re-using XHTML Basic plus RDFa DTD.

14:07:12 [manu]

ivan: Steven and I will ask Shane to put in the 10 minutes that he will need to do to make this work.

14:07:27 [tinkster]

toby: Can we include *two* DTDs in the XHTML+RDFa 1.1 Rec? i.e. an XHTML+RDFa DTD, and an XHTML Basic+RDFa DTD.

14:07:43 [manu]

ivan: The XHTML+RDFa 1.1 in the appendix has a complete DTD for XHTML 1.1 - we could place another one in the same document for XHTML Basic + RDFa 1.1

14:07:53 [ShaneM]

q+ to discuss DTDs

14:08:02 [manu]

ivan: This is easy to do, we don't lose anything, and it gets RDFa validating in XHTML Basic.

14:08:22 [manu]

shane: Yesterday on the PF WG, they want XHTML + ARIA + RDFa, and HTML4 + ARIA + RDFa

14:08:39 [manu]

manu: Does RDFa WG need to be involved in this?

14:08:59 [manu]

shane: No, PFWG will be dealing with these issues, just letting everyone know.'

14:10:11 [manu]

Topic: ISSUE-26: Error Reporting Mechanism

14:10:51 [manu]

manu: can't make much progress today - benjamin and mark aren't here.

14:10:55 [manu]

manu: Ivan has updates for us.

14:11:10 [manu]

Ivan: I've added language into RDFa Core, text for the simpler version of the error triples.

14:11:29 [manu]

ivan: if we go with those, we still have to define error classes for classes other than the @profile one.

14:11:36 [manu]

ivan: that's one thing I did.

14:11:53 [manu]

ivan: The other thing is that the namespace document /ns/rdfa - there is an RDFa version of that document...

14:12:08 [manu]

ivan: The RDFa version that I have has both the old terms and the new terms for error management.

14:12:24 [manu]

ivan: We're waiting on Mark to either agree, or to prove us wrong as this being valid way to go forward.

14:14:43 [manu]

toby: There are RDF libraries that process other languages.

14:14:52 [ivan]

q+

14:15:09 [manu]

ack shanem

14:15:09 [Zakim]

ShaneM, you wanted to discuss DTDs

14:15:11 [manu]

ack ivan

14:15:19 [manu]

toby: like TURTLE, RDF/XML... those have other error reporting mechanism.

14:15:38 [manu]

ivan: I understand Toby's point, if I have the distiller and integrate it into RDFlib, the situation becomes more complicated.

14:15:40 [manu]

q+

14:15:54 [manu]

ivan: I would be happy to say that the generation of the processor graph is not required, it is SHOULD but not a MUST.

14:16:14 [manu]

toby: That would certainly address your concerns?

14:16:17 [manu]

toby: yes

14:16:23 [manu]

q-

14:19:46 [manu]

manu: explanation about why MUST is a good thing for error reporting mechanism.

14:21:02 [manu]

toby: If we have a SHOULD, if implementers implement the Error Reporting Mechanism, they MUST implement all errors.

14:21:59 [tinkster]

i.e. "all or nothing"

14:22:27 [manu]

PROPOSAL: The Error Reporting Mechanism in RDFa Core 1.1 is optional, but if an implementation includes it, the implementation MUST implement reporting of all errors.

14:22:37 [Steven_]

+1

14:22:39 [ShaneM]

+1

14:22:40 [manu]

+1

14:22:40 [tinkster]

+1

14:22:41 [ivan]

+1

14:22:44 [Knud]

+1

14:22:53 [manu]

RESOLVED: The Error Reporting Mechanism in RDFa Core 1.1 is optional, but if an implementation includes it, the implementation MUST implement reporting of all errors.

14:23:16 [manu]

Topic: ISSUE-20: Deep Processing of XMLLiteral

14:24:12 [ivan]

q+

14:24:13 [manu]

manu: Waiting on Mark

14:24:16 [manu]

ack ivan

14:24:31 [manu]

manu: Why do we want to support Deep Processing of XMLLiterals? There doesn't seem to be a good use case.

14:25:21 [manu]

ivan: I seem to remember that we had some discussion last December on the mailing list, it was decided that deep processing is required because this is what RDFa 1.0 defines.

14:25:28 [tinkster]

no, RDFa 1.0 forbids it.

14:26:31 [manu]

ivan: so, if RDFa 1.0 forbids it - why is this suddenly an issue for now?

14:26:41 [manu]

tinkster: Stephane said that it's very useful.

14:27:15 [ShaneM]

From RDFa 1.0: Once the triple has been created, if the [datatype] of the [current object literal] is rdf:XMLLiteral, then the [recurse] flag is set to false.

14:27:41 [manu]

tinkster: It's useful when you're processing an XMLLiteral to specify the title, body of an article.

14:27:53 [manu]

tinkster: but you also want to extract triples out of the data in the triple.

14:28:12 [ShaneM]

if the datatype is NOT XMLLiteral - if it is some other XML String type, then it will still be deeply traversed.

14:28:18 [manu]

ivan: This is also useful for RSS feeds - in case you want to keep the structure, but also want to express triples in the structure.

14:28:28 [manu]

ivan: I'm a bit concerned about backwards compatibility issues...

14:28:39 [manu]

ivan: we generate a new set of triples, which is fine...

14:28:40 [tinkster]

q+ to mention opt-in

14:29:10 [manu]

ivan: So you have old RDFa content, that generates new triples.

14:29:35 [ShaneM]

q+ to discuss tobys idea

14:29:44 [manu]

ack tinkster

14:29:44 [Zakim]

tinkster, you wanted to mention opt-in

14:29:53 [manu]

tinkster: What about something that allows one to opt-in?

14:30:18 [manu]

manu: what about property="rdfa:TransparentXmlLiteral"

14:30:32 [manu]

shane: I think doing something like that is fine.

14:31:01 [manu]

shane: no, I mean datatype="rdfa:TransparentXmlLiteral"

14:31:47 [manu]

q+

14:31:48 [tinkster]

rdfa:TransparentXmlLiteral rdfs:subclassOf rdf:XMLLiteral .

14:31:50 [manu]

ack shanem

14:31:50 [Zakim]

ShaneM, you wanted to discuss tobys idea

14:32:09 [manu]

shane: can't you follow your nose, and know its an XMLLiteral?

14:32:42 [manu]

ivan: RDF environments don't work like that... defining a new datatype means a fairly complex thing... you have to define a new value-space, etc.

14:33:16 [manu]

shane: Why can't we translate, in the RDFa Processor, rdfa:TransparentXmlLiteral to XMLLiteral and then continue processing?

14:33:42 [manu]

ivan: I want to make sure we don't have the interpretation of a URL and then figure out what to do based on that URI.

14:33:52 [manu]

ivan: It raises a lot of problems.

14:34:09 [manu]

ivan: If we go that way, we may need to introduce another attribute for deep processing.

14:34:19 [manu]

Ivan: if we do that, we should be very convinced that we need that.

14:35:27 [manu]

manu: There are other technologies that could solve this issue - HTML5 data-*

14:35:34 [manu]

manu: class attribute, etc.

14:35:40 [manu]

ivan: This may be something for RDFa 2.0

14:36:33 [manu]

tinkster: There may be another easier way to opt into it.

14:36:54 [manu]

tinkster: if we can find a simple way to do it.

14:37:09 [ShaneM]

I agree that it seems like a simple thing.... if there were a simple trigger I would be in favor of integrating it in 1.1

14:37:39 [manu]

tinkster: let me have a think on it.

14:37:51 [manu]

Topic: ISSUE-24: Case-sensitive terms in HTML5

14:38:00 [manu]

manu: Shane has a proposal for this...

14:38:23 [manu]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0082.html

14:39:05 [Zakim]

-ShaneM

14:39:18 [ivan]

q+

14:40:15 [manu]

shane: When referencing TERMs in http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab - do a case insensitive comparison to figure out if we generate a triple.

14:40:39 [manu]

ivan: I think we should combine this issue with other issues: the default URI

14:41:11 [manu]

ivan: there is a difference between RDFa 1.0 and what we have right now - RDFa 1.0 has a fixed set of terms.

14:41:23 [manu]

ivan: That set is listed in the document and those are the terms in the default vocab.

14:41:35 [manu]

ivan: In RDFa 1.1, we don't have a list of terms.

14:41:41 [manu]

q+ to discuss default URI

14:41:45 [manu]

ack ivan

14:41:47 [Zakim]

+McCarron

14:42:10 [ShaneM]

zakim, mccarron is ShaneM

14:42:10 [Zakim]

+ShaneM; got it

14:43:02 [manu]

manu: We do specify the terms in XHTML+RDFa and HTML+RDFa

14:43:26 [tinkster]

In RDFa 1.1, rel="quux" maps to xhv vocab; in RDFa 1.0 it maps to nothing.

14:43:57 [manu]

shane: RDFa 1.0 enumerated these terms.

14:44:07 [manu]

shane: I objected at the time, and still now, because the list is not extensible.

14:44:21 [manu]

shane: When the new spec got produced, it just got included.

14:44:43 [ShaneM]

Note that the values defined in this section may be removed from this document and placed in an external 'RDFa Profile' so that they can be maintained independent of the specification.

14:45:02 [manu]

ivan: The whole issue of lower-case and upper-case terms are related... that's all I was saying.

14:46:30 [ivan]

q+

14:46:36 [manu]

shane: ack [IP

14:46:44 [manu]

ack [IP

14:46:44 [Zakim]

[IPcaller], you wanted to discuss default URI

14:46:48 [manu]

ack ivan

14:46:50 [Steven_]

zakim, [IP is Manu

14:46:50 [Zakim]

+Manu; got it

14:46:57 [manu]

zakim, who is on the call?

14:46:57 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Manu, tinkster, Ivan, Steven, +3539149aaaa, ShaneM

14:47:05 [Steven_]

q?

14:47:40 [manu]

ivan: We should define the terms in the document - it's not extensible.

14:47:44 [ShaneM]

q+ about html5

14:47:45 [tinkster]

Zakim, aaaa is probably Knud

14:47:46 [Zakim]

+Knud?; got it

14:48:12 [ShaneM]

ack about

14:48:13 [manu]

ivan: keeping the terms in the document as it is now, would work.

14:48:18 [ShaneM]

ack html5

14:48:23 [manu]

ivan: We should remove concept of default vocabulary from document

14:48:24 [ShaneM]

q+ to discuss html5 terms

14:48:34 [manu]

ack shanem

14:48:34 [Zakim]

ShaneM, you wanted to discuss html5 terms

14:50:55 [ivan]

q+

14:51:20 [manu]

manu: Discusses LInkTypes registries at WHATWG and IETF and case-insensitive matching.

14:51:37 [manu]

ivan: We could say that there is a profile file at a well-defined place that contains the HTML-related terms.

14:52:28 [manu]

ivan: We could get into this type of issue: XML Tools get a DTD from our servers - but tools can cache DTDs for further processing.

14:52:48 [manu]

ivan: So, we could publish a profile document for TERMS, but we could say that processors SHOULD cache the profile.

14:53:02 [manu]

ivan: Authors are not required to use the profile for HTML and XHTML.

14:53:10 [manu]

ivan: That's one way of doing things in a more flexible manner.

14:53:18 [manu]

ivan: Sounds dangerous, but I don't see any other way.

14:53:36 [manu]

shane: I wouldn't mind having a default profile specified.

14:53:48 [manu]

shane: We already say and encourage processors to cache profiles.

14:55:13 [manu]

toby: keywords could conceptually be a profile, but one that's hard-coded into XHTML+RDFa processors.

14:56:09 [manu]

shane: I'd be okay with it being hardcoded... but in XHTML modularization, we make the commitment, we won't change a module without changing its URI

14:56:16 [manu]

q+

14:56:26 [manu]

ack ivan

14:58:27 [manu]

manu: Why aren't we depending on RDFa Profile mechanism? We should depend on it.

14:58:42 [manu]

shane: Going back to the issue at hand.

14:58:57 [manu]

shane: We have to say that generated terms are case-sensitive

15:00:29 [manu]

q+ to end the telco

15:00:52 [Zakim]

-Steven

15:01:39 [tinkster]

I think including a default @vocab, even for HTML and XHTML will result in lots of junk triples. We have to share @rel/@rev space with microformats, JS libraries, etc.

15:02:44 [manu]

PROPOSAL: For terms in the default vocabulary, comparison should be performed in a case-insensitive manner when determining whether or not to generate a triple.

15:03:04 [manu]

PROPOSAL: For terms in the XHTML/HTML vocabulary, comparison should be performed in a case-insensitive manner when determining whether or not to generate a triple.

15:03:13 [tinkster]

+1

15:03:16 [ShaneM]

-1

15:03:41 [tinkster]

(this is already the case in RDFa 1.0, as an errata)

15:04:13 [Zakim]

-ShaneM

15:04:16 [ivan]

zakim, drop me

15:04:16 [Zakim]

Ivan is being disconnected

15:04:18 [Zakim]

-tinkster

15:04:18 [Zakim]

-Ivan

15:04:18 [Zakim]

-Manu

15:04:19 [Zakim]

-Knud?

15:04:19 [Zakim]

SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended

15:04:21 [Zakim]

Attendees were [IPcaller], ShaneM, tinkster, Ivan, Steven, +3539149aaaa, Manu, Knud?

15:05:00 [ShaneM]

ShaneM has left #rdfa

15:34:33 [manu]

manu has left #rdfa

15:34:38 [manu]

manu has joined #rdfa

15:34:41 [manu]

zakim, bye

15:34:41 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #rdfa

15:34:44 [manu]

trackbot bye

15:34:46 [manu]

rrsagent, bye

15:34:46 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items