RDF Web Apps WG telecon minutes for 2011-07-07

Thanks to Ted for scribing! The RDF Web Apps WG telecon minutes for
July 7th 2011 are now available here:


If you would like to read minutes from this or previous meetings, the
public record of all RDFa WG telecons is available here:


Full transcript follows:

  Gregg Kellogg, Manu Sporny, Niklas Lindström, Shane McCarron,
  Steven Pemberton, Stéphane Corlosquet, Ted Thibodeau
  Niklas Lindström, Stéphane Corlosquet
  Manu Sporny
  Ted Thibodeau

  1. Introduction of Niklas Lindström
  2. Updates on HTML WG position on TAG note
  3. Review official position e-mail on TAG issue
  4. Thoughts on RDFa Basic vs. RDFa Advanced
  5. Philip's comments on APIs

(Scribe set to Ted Thibodeau)

1. Introduction of Niklas Lindström

Niklas Lindström: consultant in Sweden, working with RDF for 6+ years,
semantics and fidelity of expression are prime interests

... coming back to RDFa from API perspective, but now considering
Microdata/mapping concerns

2. Updates on HTML WG position on TAG note

Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/30-html-wg-minutes.html#item09
Manu Sporny: HTML WG has discussed what to do about TAG note; basic
response is "need information"

Steven Pemberton: all the more reason why we should send a formal objection

Manu Sporny: better that the TAG does that

Manu Sporny: HTML WG has basically asked TAG to make their concerns more
clear and formal, before they will act

Steven Pemberton: if TAG does so, that's fine. if not, then we should
step up.

Manu Sporny: that's the path we'll take

3. Review official position e-mail on TAG issue

Manu Sporny:
Manu Sporny: ...reviewing official position email draft, concern by

... "CONCERN: Multiple specifications for the same task" -- effectively,
same concern as TAG has expressed.

... not "which spec should exist?" but "should there be two specs?"

Gregg Kellogg: 2 key questions -- should there be 2 markups, and what is
range of data to be marked up?

... i.e., what is the purpose of metadata markup in HTML? presumably to
generate data compatible with other W3C specs, e.g., RDF


Ted Thibodeau: This is a range issue - what use cases are supported? [
Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]
Niklas Lindström: apart from use cases (what), microdata raises concern
of *how*

... how much do you expose to an expert as opposed to a newbie?

Manu Sporny: is the important thing, how much complexity do new people
have to deal with straight-away?

Niklas Lindström: that's the gist. e.g., if something looks like a date,
is that enough, or does it have to be specifically typed, etc?

Stéphane Corlosquet: bear in mind that the reason why md was created is
because RDFa was covering too many use cases and was overkill for the
basic web developers... the TF should focus on identifying practical use
cases which RDFa covers (and not no md) which make sense for regular web
developers (the audience of md)
Manu Sporny: `CONCERN: Consensus on "No Change"` -- TAG must know that
this really isn't an option

Niklas Lindström: it's very bad to have two specs for the same thing...

Manu Sporny: `CONCERN: Key implementers will choose to not be involved.`
XHTML and XForms both had task forces to figure out best way forward;
neither was successful because key players didn't play

... advice is, make sure the list we've sent gets involved

... `CONCERN: Agreement and then non-action` -- everybody agrees on
plan, but nobody acts on agreement...

... advice is to actively review commitments and report on follow-through

... `CONCERN: Slow creation of Task Force` -- if it takes too long to
create TF, other WG (RDFa, HTML, others?) timelines are jeopardized

... advice is to prioritize this TF effort

Niklas Lindström: conflicting specs have happened before. this is
opportunity for W3C to show they can handle such conflicts...

Steven Pemberton: does TAG think that creating this TF is their job?

Manu Sporny: nobody wants the job... everybody's waiting to see who
steps forward

... we'll nudge TAG to accept responsibility

... `CONCERN: TAG Note is not actionable`

... advice: formalize objections & concerns, so that something actually
comes of this

ACTION: manu to revise email to TAG based on today's discussion, with
"last comments" due ASAP mailing list

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-87 - Revise email to TAG based on
today's discussion, with "last comments" due ASAP mailing list [on Manu
Sporny - due 2011-07-14].
4. Thoughts on RDFa Basic vs. RDFa Advanced

Manu Sporny:
Niklas Lindström: Microdata seems to be surface data with no fidelity.

... can quickly be mapped to triples, if you base off URI of current

... vocab and profile mechanisms could be used to add fidelity

... somewhat akin to GRDDL

Manu Sporny: This is somewhat akin to the JSON-LD coercion approach:
Manu points out similarity of JSON-LD coercion approach:

Niklas Lindström: and also to GLUON:

Niklas Lindström: this might also answer how to represent RDF
connections in RDFa

Manu Sporny: q+ to note browser manufacturers don't like this.
Gregg Kellogg: putting profile in RDFa Advanced seems to make this a
less useful path forward...?

Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to note browser manufacturers don't like
Manu Sporny: browser vendors are expressing preference for non-RDFa
APIs, because they think RDFa API makes caching and other performance
issues harder to address

Manu Sporny: trouble with profile is that browser has to stop
processing, retrieve profile doc, and then resume processing

... browser vendors just don't like profile...

Niklas Lindström: put profile in Basic, but allow basic API processing
*without* profile application (and thus low fidelity). Advanced brings
profile processing (and high fidelity)...

5. Philip's comments on APIs

Manu Sporny: should be taken very seriously, from Opera, works on this
stuff in his spare time, but he is also a potential browser implementer
and understands the issues clearly.

Manu Sporny: maybe we should sit on WHAT WG, mozilla, other channels,
and ask them about API thoughts

... we do want a path that makes it very easy for browser vendors to

... "easy to implement in Javascript doesn't mean easy to implement in a
performant way"

Niklas Lindström: performance concerns seem addressable by low-fidelity
microdata-ish RDFa Basic.

Ted Thibodeau: It seems that the browser vendors are mostly concerned
about human interaction - most of what we're takling about is machine
interaction. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]
Ted Thibodeau: Basic to Advanced progression makes a great deal of sense
to me - initial pass - low fidelity. Once there is something there for
human to deal w/ then we do more advanced / less performant mechanism. [
Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]
Niklas Lindström: interesting consideration is "end users" vs "re-users"
even more than "human" vs "machine"

Stéphane Corlosquet: manu - we should not be pestering them
Manu Sporny: anyone willing to sit on WHAT-WG channel and ask questions?

Niklas Lindström: will be polling relevant existing contacts...

Stéphane Corlosquet: +1
Manu Sporny: right, this is not about pestering, but about checking for
concerns with APIs, and figuring out how best to address...

... correcting misundersatndings, etc.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarm Developer Tools and Demo Released

Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 17:06:15 UTC