RDF Web Apps WG telecon minutes for 2011-09-22

The RDF Web Apps WG telecon minutes for September 22nd 2011 are now 
available here:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-09-22

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

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Meetings

Full text log follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 22 September 2011

Agenda
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Sep/0082.html
Seen
    Manu Sporny, Niklas Lindström, Sebastian Germesin, Steven Pemberton,
    Stéphane Corlosquet, Toby Inkster
Guests
    Niklas Lindström, Toby Inkster
Chair
    Manu Sporny
Scribe
    Manu Sporny
Resolutions
    None.

Topics
1. schema.org workshop
2. ISSUE-108: Refine/deprecate Link relations

(Scribe set to Manu Sporny)

(No events recorded for 8 minutes)

Sebastian Germesin: OMM group will contact us soon - 
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/omm/ - they want to use RDFa to achieve 
some of their goals, will contact us via mailing list soon.

Zakim IRC Bot: who is on the call?

1. schema.org workshop

Stéphane Corlosquet: Lots of interest in the audience - Ralph was there, 
Ian Hickson was there... etc.

Stéphane Corlosquet: Ben Adida presented a proposal for a simpler 
version of RDFa: RDFa 1.1 Lite 
http://ben.adida.net/presentations/rdfa-2011-09-21/
Stéphane Corlosquet: There was a breakout session on syntax - Ben 
proposed RDFa 1.1 lite

Stéphane Corlosquet: Guha indicated he found it much simpler than full 
blown RDFa.
Stéphane Corlosquet: very good presentation - audience was very 
receptive - Guha said that he found it was pretty interesting (RDFa 1.1 
lite)

Stéphane Corlosquet: Guha stated goal for the syntax session: Does the 
community just want one syntax, or is it ok to have multiple syntaxes?
Stéphane Corlosquet: We want to make is easy for 90% of the people, 
while not making it impossible for the rest of the 10% to achieve more 
advanced use cases.
Stéphane Corlosquet: Consensus that having multiple syntaxes is the best 
solution. The W3C HTML Data TF chaired by Jeni should help clarify the 
differences between the syntaxes: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Html-data-tf
Stéphane Corlosquet: It seemed everyone agreed - even the schema 
sponsors - that having multiple syntaxes would be the best.

Stéphane Corlosquet: Martin Hepp raised several pain points with RDFa, 
like additional nested elements which can be hard to add on existing 
sites, and the confusion between @rel and @property.
Stéphane Corlosquet: The multitype feature missing in microdata is 
something that was coming up very often during discussions.
Stéphane Corlosquet: Ben made the case of why we have @rel and @property

Stéphane Corlosquet: Remixing vocabularies was also a popular feature.
Stéphane Corlosquet: One of the reasons that RDFa is still considered 
for schema.org - that and mixing vocabularies. schema.org sponsors were 
open to these features - more specialized vocabularies that people will use.

Stéphane Corlosquet: 96% of rNews merged into schema.org (working on the 
rest)
Stéphane Corlosquet: That was the session on syntax - that was in the 
morning.

Stéphane Corlosquet: Evan Sandhaus and Andreas Gebhardt said that most 
of rNews has been merged into schema.org.

Stéphane Corlosquet: http://schema.org/NewsArticle
Stéphane Corlosquet: schema.org is very open to having more 
collaboration for incorporating more domain specific schemas, such as 
scholarly articles (on going with Rachel Sanders).
Manu Sporny: Did anybody raise the concern of having one uber-vocabulary 
for everything?

Stéphane Corlosquet: They said that the only centralized concern is DNS 
and the rest is decentralized - Ralph said that he was pretty happy with 
the direction. schema.org is not trying to be the uber-vocabulary - they 
are interested in integrating some schemas and collaborating. However, 
they want to discuss whether properties should be added to the schema... 
they may reject properties if they are too specialized.

(No events recorded for 7 minutes)

Stéphane Corlosquet: Tantek closed the workshop with four points.

Stéphane Corlosquet: 1) Simplicity of the mental model - if all syntaxes 
can agree on a mental model, then that helps with the syntaxes.

Stéphane Corlosquet: 2) Iterating and learning from multiple syntaxes is 
good. There is no syntax today that makes everyone happy - so best to 
keep multiple syntaxes.

Stéphane Corlosquet: 3) Multiple types is a feature that we need - so 
that's a good thing to have.

Stéphane Corlosquet: 4) People want to innovate effeciently - consensus 
takes too long - that's why schema.org went ahead and put out the 
baseline - sometimes best not to wait for consensus, put a stake in the 
ground and start discussing from there.

Stéphane Corlosquet: Most of the folks said that they made some mistakes 
when launching schema.org - but they wanted something there.

Manu Sporny: Okay, so there are a few things that we can focus on - 
@rel/@property and RDFa 1.1 Lite (which is just a subset of RDFa 1.1)

Steven Pemberton: A 'profile' as we call it
Manu Sporny: Was there any mention of them supporting RDFa 1.1?

Stéphane Corlosquet: Guha said that they are not religious about syntax 
- but there has not been any official announcement for support for RDFa.

Stéphane Corlosquet: Google still claims that they only support 
Microdata for now. However, we don't have any sort of written statement 
on RDFa 1.1 support.

Niklas Lindström: I would expect that they need the @vocab attribute to 
make the examples work with their ideals... from my point of view, it 
couldn't be done soon enough so that schema.org could support RDFa 1.1 Lite.

Niklas Lindström: If they support that as soon as possible, however - 
Microdata is not a final spec either. So no reason not to support RDFa 
1.1 Lite - we are working on RDF vocabulary for expressing educational 
content on the Web.

Niklas Lindström: As it is now, we have to jump through Microdata hoops 
to get it out on the Web.

Stéphane Corlosquet: Google probably won't care about underlying meaning 
of @vocab - they won't dereference it... you just publish the HTML, even 
if RDF vocabulary isn't finished, they won't care about that.

Stéphane Corlosquet: Yes, and I wouldn't expect them to dereference the 
vocabulary.

Manu Sporny: What are the Microdata issues?

Niklas Lindström: I have a graph that I'm publishing, and I don't know 
if that graph will be able to be expressed in Microdata.

Stéphane Corlosquet: Niklas, why don't you publish both RDFa and micro 
data for now?
Niklas Lindström: I could make Microformats out of it - but it 
diminishes the power of using RDF internally - I want to use the power 
of OWL and SKOS and express a coherent information model for the 
government agency that is in charge of this. There is no sensible model 
in Microdata at all - it's just a bunch of JSON structures that you get 
out w/o linkages to anything conceptual.

Stéphane Corlosquet: Can you publish in both syntaxes for now?

Niklas Lindström: Yes, I'll probably do that - if I generate in HTML, 
I'll probably generate in only one syntax... right now, it seems like I 
want to use just Microdata - but pragmatic choice (makes me cringe) - 
but if you want to be indexed by Google, you have to do that.

Stéphane Corlosquet: They accept RDFa for Movies... not very useful for 
annotating blog posts and other things - you can use Photo instead of 
Image - they will recognize schema:Photo - event, organization, person

Stéphane Corlosquet: They'll fix that

Stéphane Corlosquet: About @language - one of the things that Jeni 
mentioned about Microdata/RDFa - JSON that you get out of Microdata 
doesn't say anything about language.

Niklas Lindström: We need language information - swedish, spanish, 
russian, etc.

Stéphane Corlosquet: Your use case would be very good to raise in the 
Task Force.

Stéphane Corlosquet: That Microdata doesn't cut it for you - you need 
language information.

Manu Sporny: They could use JSON-LD - it can encode Microdata, RDFa and 
Microformats - it was designed for that - but Microdata folks might be 
against that.

Niklas Lindström: We're on the path to using JSON-LD

Niklas Lindström: They have an old XML schema, there is no coordination 
going on - RDF and a sprinkle of OWL and SKOS would do wonders for them 
- but the toolchain isn't there in Microdata - there is no match. With 
RDF, RDFa and JSON-LD - everything is coherent there... The RDF model is 
coherent.

Manu Sporny: Yes, you'll get nothing but nods of agreement from the 
people on this call.

Niklas Lindström: Yes, that's one of the sad things - there doesn't seem 
to be a consistent mental model here. Splitting people into 'academics' 
and 'pragmatics' misses the point. If you are going to create something 
of value you have to do both - you have to be pragmatic and you have to 
focus on researching what didn't work in the past.

Stéphane Corlosquet: Microformats folks would agree with that.

(No events recorded for 7 minutes)

Niklas Lindström: schema.org == http://xkcd.com/927/

2. ISSUE-108: Refine/deprecate Link relations

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/108

Niklas Lindström: rel="stylesheet alternate"
Manu Sporny: We need someone to go through and remove all link relations 
that have multiple entries like "stylesheet alternate" - we wouldn't 
support "stylesheet" or "alternate".

Manu Sporny: We have to change the default profiles as a result of this 
issue.

Niklas Lindström: Toby's parser option is interesting - force 
rel="alternate stylesheet" to be interpreted as 
rel="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#ALTERNATE_STYLESHEET"

Niklas Lindström: Problematic to define something like that.

Toby Inkster: The Microdata to RDF algorithm (which I'm told is being 
dropped in the next Microdata WD) does precisely that.
Toby Inkster: (That's where I stole the idea from.)
Manu Sporny: Ok, we'll keep this open until we have someone that can 
commit to removing the terms like "stylesheet" and "alternate" - someone 
that does a full review.

Toby Inkster: One possibility would be to drop support for "alternate". 
It's so misused. That way rel="stylesheet alternate" would simply end up 
like rel="stylesheet" and thus generate a vaguely sensible triple.


--manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Uber Comparison of RDFa, Microformats and Microdata
http://manu.sporny.org/2011/uber-comparison-rdfa-md-uf/

Received on Thursday, 22 September 2011 15:38:57 UTC