13:18:30 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
13:18:30 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-rdfa-irc
13:18:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:18:32 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa
13:18:34 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
13:18:34 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 42 minutes
13:18:35 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:18:35 <trackbot> Date: 26 April 2012
13:40:25 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #rdfa
13:48:42 <Steven_> Steven_ has joined #rdfa
13:59:43 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #rdfa
14:00:05 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:00:13 <Zakim> +??P5
14:00:20 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P5
14:00:21 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
14:00:32 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:00:41 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:00:43 <Zakim> +Ivan
14:01:14 <Zakim> +??P11
14:01:16 <niklasl> zakim, I am ??P11
14:01:16 <Zakim> +??P15
14:01:16 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P11
14:01:20 <Steven_> Steven_ has joined #rdfa
14:01:23 <Zakim> +niklasl; got it
14:01:24 <Zakim> sorry, manu1, I do not see a party named '??P11'
14:01:29 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P15
14:01:38 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
14:01:54 <Zakim> +??P13
14:02:41 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
14:02:53 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
14:02:54 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
14:02:56 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
14:03:06 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
14:04:20 <Zakim> +McCarron
14:04:29 <Zakim> +??P26
14:04:45 <Steven_> zakim, I am ??P26
14:04:45 <Zakim> +Steven_; got it
14:06:16 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
14:06:35 <ShaneM> zakim, who is here?
14:06:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see gkellogg, Ivan, niklasl, manu1, ??P13, MacTed (muted), McCarron, Steven_
14:06:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see ShaneM, Steven_, niklasl, MacTed, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot, ivan, manu, manu1, gkellogg
14:06:44 <ShaneM> zakim, McCarron is ShaneM
14:06:44 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
14:10:20 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:10:20 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
14:10:45 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Apr/0061.html
14:10:55 <ivan> scribenick: ivan
14:11:01 <ivan> scribe: ivan
14:11:45 <niklasl> +1
14:13:06 <scor> scor has joined #rdfa
14:13:37 <niklasl> Issue: fix regexp in the xsd:simpleType definition of CURIE (it's too lax, matching e.g. "pfx://abc")
14:13:37 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-138 - Fix regexp in the xsd:simpleType definition of CURIE (it's too lax, matching e.g. "pfx://abc") ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/138/edit .
14:13:56 <manu1> Topic: High-level Overview of May and June re: RDFa 1.1
14:14:59 <Steven> Steven has joined #rdfa
14:15:47 <ivan> manu: we try to move to pr, as long as the issues for today do not create a problem 
14:15:59 <ivan> … we want to make an announcement in semtech on the rec publications
14:16:06 <ivan> q+
14:16:15 <manu1> ack ivan
14:16:30 <manu1> ivan: To make it very clear - this means that we have to publish the PR in a week.
14:17:16 <manu1> ivan: procedural description - we have to have a transition call - I have already started to find a time to do it. We have to start the process of members voting - at the minimum, 4 weeks.
14:17:40 <manu1> ivan: If we start the process formally, on Thursday, it will end on the Thursday before the conference. If there are no objections during the voting period, moving to REC becomes an automatic thing.
14:17:54 <manu1> ivan: We can publish the REC the Tuesday after... very tight schedule.
14:18:21 <Steven_> Steven_ has joined #rdfa
14:18:28 <manu1> ivan: We can shift a little bit because the conference ends on Thursday, we could formally announce on Thursday... but that's not ideal - let's try for Tuesday of the conference.
14:18:39 <ivan> manu1: any question  on the process?
14:18:41 <ivan> ....
14:18:43 <ivan> ....
14:18:45 <ivan> ….....
14:18:46 <ivan> …………..
14:18:51 <ivan> (none)
14:18:54 <manu1> Topic: Exiting Candidate Recommendation Phase
14:19:19 <ivan> manu1: we have some editorial issues and some open issues that we have 
14:19:19 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/open
14:19:30 <ivan> … deal first with what affects the rec document
14:19:38 <ivan> issue-138?
14:19:38 <trackbot> ISSUE-138 -- Fix regexp in the xsd:simpleType definition of CURIE (it's too lax, matching e.g. "pfx://abc") -- open
14:19:38 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/138
14:20:14 <ivan> manu1: niklas, do you have an alternative regex?
14:20:26 <ivan> … what we could do is to resolve to fix the reges
14:20:30 <ivan> s/reges/regex/
14:20:59 <niklasl> Current CURIE simpleType pattern: (([\i-[:]][\c-[:]]*)?:)?[^\s]+
14:21:06 <ivan> ShaneM: i do not know whether the regex is wrong
14:21:12 <ivan> q+
14:21:15 <manu1> ack ivan
14:21:22 <niklasl> Should not match curie://path
14:21:33 <manu1> ivan: Where does this regex come from? Does it come from the xsd:simpleType definition?
14:22:00 <ivan> shane: ivan. you are wrong!
14:22:31 <ivan> ShaneM: it is the definition in 8.1, which is informative
14:22:38 <ivan> … i.e., we can change it the way we want...
14:23:17 <ivan> ShaneM: it is too lax right now, and what is the problem with that?
14:23:45 <ivan> niklasl: this is not a correct one, we decided that curie-s should be different
14:24:04 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Fix the regular expression for the definition of a CURIE in RDFa Core 1.1, Appendix A.1 to not allow "://" as a valid CURIE.
14:24:08 <ivan> +1
14:24:08 <manu1> +1
14:24:10 <ShaneM> +1
14:24:11 <niklasl> +1
14:24:18 <gkellogg> +1
14:24:18 <Steven_> +1
14:24:35 <MacTed> +1
14:24:39 <scor> +1
14:24:42 <manu1> RESOLVED: Fix the regular expression for the definition of a CURIE in RDFa Core 1.1, Appendix A.1 to not allow "://" as a valid CURIE.
14:25:07 <ivan> issue-136?
14:25:07 <trackbot> ISSUE-136 -- RDFa Lite 1.1 Conformance Section - host language attributes -- open
14:25:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/136
14:25:08 <manu1> Next up: https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/136
14:25:33 <ivan> manu: alex brought it up, rdfa lite conformance
14:25:42 <ivan> … we need to do some minor editorial changes
14:25:47 <ivan> q+
14:25:51 <manu1> ack ivan
14:26:28 <manu1> ivan: If you follow the thread, I have some text which is relatively obvious for adding a reference to @href and @src - there is the @rel/@rev issue. I'm not sure how to address that.
14:26:34 <gkellogg> Proposed text from Ivan: It must not use any additional RDFa attributes other than vocab, typeof, property, resource, and prefix; it may also use href and src, in case the Host Language authorizes their usage. The usage of rel and rev, if authorized by the Host Language, should be restricted to non-RDFa usage patterns, as defined by the Host Language.
14:27:00 <manu1> ivan: If somebody uses @rel with one of those attributes not meant for RDFa - they are conformant RDFa Lite.
14:27:57 <Steven_> Steven_ has joined #rdfa
14:31:23 <MacTed> "It must not use any additional RDFa attributes other than vocab, typeof, property, resource, and prefix; it may also use href and src, when the Host Language authorizes their usage. However, even if authorized by the Host Language, the usage of rel and rev should be restricted to non-RDFa usage patterns, as defined by the Host Language."
14:31:36 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Update the RDFa Lite 1.1 specification to make it clear that authors must not use any additional RDFa attributes other than vocab, typeof, property, resource, and prefix; it may also use href and src, in case the Host Language authorizes their usage. The usage of rel and rev, if authorized by the Host Language, should be restricted to non-RDFa usage patterns, as defined by the Host...
14:31:37 <manu1> ...Language.
14:31:53 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
14:31:53 <Zakim> MacTed was not muted, MacTed
14:33:09 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Update the RDFa Lite 1.1 specification using something to the effect of: "It must not use any additional RDFa attributes other than vocab, typeof, property, resource, and prefix; it may also use href and src, when the Host Language authorizes their usage. However, even if authorized by the Host Language, the usage of rel and rev should be restricted to non-RDFa usage patterns, as...
14:33:10 <manu1> ...defined by the Host Language."
14:33:22 <manu1> +1
14:33:23 <MacTed> +1
14:33:23 <gkellogg> +1
14:33:24 <ivan> +1
14:33:26 <ShaneM> +1
14:33:26 <scor> +1
14:33:39 <Steven> +1
14:33:50 <niklasl> +1
14:33:54 <manu1> RESOLVED: Update the RDFa Lite 1.1 specification using something to the effect of: "It must not use any additional RDFa attributes other than vocab, typeof, property, resource, and prefix; it may also use href and src, when the Host Language authorizes their usage. However, even if authorized by the Host Language, the usage of rel and rev should be restricted to non-RDFa usage patterns, as...
14:33:56 <manu1> ...defined by the Host Language."
14:33:59 <scor> It seems these pure editorial changes were not made to RDFa Lite yet: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Mar/0002.html - we might not need to vote, but I want to double check…
14:34:21 <ivan> issue-134?
14:34:21 <trackbot> ISSUE-134 -- Section 7.5, Step 11 Ambiguity in RDFa Core 1.1 -- open
14:34:21 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/134
14:34:37 <manu1> We should discuss: https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/134
14:35:40 <scor> q+
14:35:50 <ivan> manu1: we could say that 'why the wording may be more clear, we have four interoperable implementations already therefore we should not change it at this point'
14:35:51 <ivan> q+
14:35:54 <manu1> ack scor
14:36:02 <ivan> scor: these changes are not substantive
14:36:07 <ivan> … why not make them
14:36:11 <manu1> scor: These changes are not substantive.
14:36:32 <ivan> manu: the danger is that we would make changes with bugs
14:37:07 <manu1> ack ivan
14:37:32 <manu1> ivan: If I want to be fair, your argumentation doesn't hold, Manu - all four implementations are from people in this WG.
14:37:36 <manu1> q+
14:38:27 <manu1> ivan: Alex is the first person that implemented this w/o being a part of the discussion. You could refute the argument you're using that way. That being said, I am very worried about making wide changes. We could address Alex's issue at this point, but it becomes a bit scary to make this change at this point.
14:38:28 <gkellogg> q+
14:38:29 <manu1> ack manu1
14:38:55 <manu1> MacTed: Could we make this change as a note?
14:38:58 <manu1> ivan: Not really.
14:39:30 <ivan> manu1: one minor note: whenever I go through this stuff and implement it, then I really read it through the word
14:39:36 <ivan> … it was not not 'not clear'
14:39:43 <manu1> ack gkellogg
14:39:43 <ivan> … but ivan is right we understand that stuff
14:39:57 <ivan> gkellogg: I attempt to do same thing, i.e., reading the document
14:40:05 <Steven_> Steven_ has joined #rdfa
14:40:09 <ivan> … i implemented 1.0 without being in the group
14:40:19 <ivan> … the most important point was the test cases
14:40:20 <niklasl> +1
14:40:34 <ivan> … and I would be worried to make any change that should ripple through the document
14:41:38 <ivan> manu: we agree that it would be nice to make the processing steps a little bit more clear, but we are concerned about the ripple effects of this mainly when we already have implementations
14:42:01 <ivan> niklasl: i was mainly driven by the test cases, and in case we had a problem i went back to the text
14:42:02 <niklasl> … "… "otherwise, if the @rel, @rev, and @content attributes are not present, as a resource obtained from one of the following:""
14:42:30 <scor> q+
14:42:46 <ivan> niklasl: I can see Alex' point if he did not have a return statement in his text
14:42:56 <niklasl> … "otherwise, if the @rel, @rev, and @content attributes are not present, and a resource is obtained from one of the following:"
14:43:13 <manu1> ack scor
14:43:13 <ivan> niklas: we could change the text to the above
14:43:43 <ivan> scor: grant mail says that we should not change this
14:43:51 <manu1> scor: Grant recommends not to change the wording... he's agreeing with the general direction of the group.
14:44:18 <ivan> scor: we could say the group agrees not to change
14:44:28 <ivan> manu: i do not think we should make any change at this point
14:44:37 <ivan> … alex would understand if we do not make the change
14:44:44 <ivan> … the positive downside is very large
14:44:54 <ivan> … and we do not really have a consensus that we really need the change
14:45:53 <ivan> manu: i think we are talking this to death
14:46:06 <Steven_> Move on
14:46:07 <ivan> … i have not heard anybody who really feels we have to make this change
14:47:49 <MacTed> While the text is not as clear as it might be, implications of a change are potentially more problematic than the present inclarity.
14:48:32 <niklasl> .. I believe that Core section "8.1.1.3.1 Chaining with @property and @typeof" <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#chaining-with--property-and--typeof> wouldn't work with the wrong implementation of this step. Can anyone verify?
14:49:00 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Regarding Section 7.5, Step 11, while the text is not as clear as it might be, making a change at this point could be more problematic than leaving the text as is.
14:49:10 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Regarding Section 7.5, Step 11, while the text is not as clear as it should be, making a change at this point could be more problematic than leaving the text as is.
14:49:17 <gkellogg> +1
14:49:19 <ivan> +1
14:49:29 <manu1> +1
14:49:40 <scor> +1
14:49:42 <niklasl> +1
14:49:52 <MacTed> +1
14:49:59 <manu1> Additionally, the group believes that making a change right before REC is a bad idea, especially when the potential upside is vague.
14:50:08 <ShaneM> +1
14:50:15 <Steven> +1
14:50:17 <manu1> RESOLVED: Regarding Section 7.5, Step 11, while the text is not as clear as it should be, making a change at this point could be more problematic than leaving the text as is.
14:51:16 <niklasl> q+
14:51:34 <manu1> ack niklasl
14:51:43 <ivan> niklasl: issue 135, do we have to discuss it?
14:51:50 <ivan> … it almost brought us to a halt...
14:52:03 <ivan> manu: yes, but we have to finalize the rec versions
14:52:36 <scor> q+
14:53:04 <scor> It seems these pure editorial changes were not made to RDFa Lite yet: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Mar/0002.html - we might not need to vote, but I want to double check 
14:53:27 <ivan> manu: i intend to merge those 
14:53:32 <ivan> … everything in there is editorial
14:53:36 <ivan> … i will do what you say
14:55:09 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The RDF Web Apps Working Group requests that the Director move RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1, and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to the Proposed Recommendation status modulo any changes that may be required before April 30th. The group requests that the documents are published on May 3rd 2012.
14:55:24 <scor> +1
14:55:25 <gkellogg> +1
14:55:26 <Steven> +1
14:55:26 <ivan> +1
14:55:27 <niklasl> +1
14:55:27 <manu1> +1
14:55:34 <MacTed> +1
14:55:46 <ShaneM> +1
14:55:48 <manu1> RESOLVED: The RDF Web Apps Working Group requests that the Director move RDFa Core 1.1, RDFa Lite 1.1, and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 to the Proposed Recommendation status modulo any changes that may be required before April 30th. The group requests that the documents are published on May 3rd 2012.
14:56:47 <ShaneM> CURIE regex: (([\i-[:]][\c-[:]]*)?:)?(/[^\s/]|[^\s/])[^\s]*
14:57:22 <manu1> ivan: Practicalities - Manu - you should send out an e-mail to the chairs requesting PR... it should go out on Monday (that's the 30th). Maybe sending it out before to Ralph, Thomas, Ivan would be good. We should have this on the record. There should be some sort of a report on what changes have happened on the document.
14:57:55 <gkellogg> q+
14:57:59 <manu1> ack scor
14:58:06 <manu1> ack gkellogg
14:58:21 <ivan> gkellogg: the earl report, should it be a working group note?
14:58:23 <gkellogg> http://rdfa.info/earl-reports/
15:00:05 <ivan> manu1: I will put the document on w3c space
15:00:23 <ivan> … will send out the info to ralph, thomas, and an official mail with chairs to monday
15:00:40 <ivan> topic: del value issue
15:00:45 <manu1> Topic: ISSUE-135: RDFa Lite and non-RDFa @rel values
15:00:54 <Steven> s/del val/rel val/
15:00:58 <Zakim> -MacTed
15:01:50 <ShaneM> q+
15:02:26 <manu1> ack shanem
15:02:34 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/135
15:03:55 <bergie> bergie has joined #rdfa
15:04:55 <niklasl> q+
15:05:06 <ivan> q+
15:05:22 <scor> q+
15:06:02 <manu1> ack niklasl
15:09:23 <manu1> ack ivan
15:09:25 <manu1> q+
15:10:25 <manu1> ack scor
15:14:31 <manu1> ack
15:15:02 <scor> q+
15:16:53 <ivan> ack manu1 
15:17:20 <ivan> q+
15:17:26 <manu1> ack scor
15:21:28 <manu1> ack ivan
15:23:00 <scor> q+
15:23:43 <ShaneM> q+ to ask about @vocab and @rel
15:23:51 <manu1> ack scor
15:25:13 <manu1> q+ for no changes to RDFa Core
15:25:20 <manu1> ack shanem
15:25:20 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about @vocab and @rel
15:27:04 <Steven_> Steven_ has joined #rdfa
15:29:18 <scor> q+
15:30:08 <manu1> ack manu1
15:30:08 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss no changes to RDFa Core
15:30:31 <Steven> +1 to that
15:30:41 <gkellogg> +1
15:31:16 <scor> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-data-guide/#properties-within-links
15:31:17 <manu1> ack scor
15:32:52 <manu1> q+ to propose a way forward with this issue.
15:35:11 <scor> q+
15:36:09 <gkellogg> q+
15:36:18 <ShaneM> q+
15:37:46 <manu1> ack manu1
15:37:46 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to propose a way forward with this issue.
15:39:01 <manu1> ack scor
15:40:17 <gkellogg> q-
15:42:11 <bergie> bergie has joined #rdfa
15:44:15 <manu1> ack shanem
15:44:27 <manu1> What does the group favor? Straw poll: There are two options to address this issue: 1) In HTML5+RDFa - when using @vocab, authors MUST use CURIEs or IRIs in @rel (terms are ignored), and 2) In HTML5+RDFa, authors MUST use CURIEs or IRIs in @rel - no terms are allowed.
15:44:43 <ivan> +1 +1
15:44:47 <scor> +1 for either
15:44:51 <gkellogg> +0, +1
15:44:57 <ShaneM> -1 +1
15:45:07 <manu1> manu: -1 -1 (but if I had to pick), -1 +1
15:45:57 <Steven> +0 +0
15:45:58 <niklasl> +0.75 +0.75 (I'd prefer opt. 2 + "only if @property is present in the same element")
15:48:25 <Zakim> -ShaneM
15:48:27 <Zakim> -Steven_
15:48:27 <Zakim> -gkellogg
15:48:30 <Zakim> -manu1
15:48:32 <Zakim> -niklasl
15:48:33 <Zakim> -??P13
15:48:58 <gkellogg> manu: the earl report is up to date, but the displayed version is not. Must be another site sync issue.
15:49:27 <manu1> gkellogg: thanks, I'll git pull
15:52:23 <Zakim> -Ivan
15:52:24 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
15:52:24 <Zakim> Attendees were gkellogg, Ivan, niklasl, manu1, MacTed, Steven_, ShaneM
16:07:34 <niklasl> To be clear, I'm sure that in option 2 we also mean "terms are ignored" (i.e. you may use non-curie names, they just are ignored). And we also in both cases imply that if all is ignored, the @rel *itself* is ignored (needed to avoid it's effect on processing when combined with @property - the heart of the issue)
16:31:41 <manu1> niklasl: That was my read on it as well
16:31:59 <niklasl> Great.
16:38:37 <niklasl> niklasl has left #rdfa
17:48:02 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfa
18:32:38 <bergie> bergie has joined #rdfa
20:51:54 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
21:46:40 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #rdfa
21:49:04 <ShaneM> ShaneM has left #rdfa