Chatlog 2011-03-17
From RDFa Working Group Wiki
See CommonScribe Control Panel, original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.
13:45:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa 13:45:22 <RRSAgent> logging to 13:45:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 13:45:24 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfa 13:45:26 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332 13:45:26 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 15 minutes 13:45:27 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference 13:45:27 <trackbot> Date: 17 March 2011 13:45:33 <manu> Agenda: 13:45:34 <manu> Chair: Manu 13:45:37 <manu> Present: Benjamin, Ivan, Manu, Steven, Nathan, Knud, Toby 13:45:37 <manu> Regrets: Shane 13:56:34 <Benjamin> Benjamin has joined #rdfa 14:00:16 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started 14:00:23 <Zakim> +??P9 14:00:26 <manu> zakim, I am ??P9 14:00:26 <Zakim> +manu; got it 14:01:10 <manu> zakim, mute me 14:01:11 <Zakim> sorry, manu, muting is not permitted when only one person is present 14:01:36 <Zakim> +??P16 14:01:39 <Zakim> + +49.631.205.75.aaaa 14:01:45 <ivan> zakim, aaaa is me 14:01:45 <Zakim> +ivan; got it 14:01:53 <Benjamin> zakim, I am aaaa 14:01:54 <Zakim> sorry, Benjamin, I do not see a party named 'aaaa' 14:02:13 <Benjamin> zakim, I am +49.631.205.75.aaaa 14:02:13 <Zakim> sorry, Benjamin, I do not see a party named '+49.631.205.75.aaaa' 14:02:45 <Benjamin> zakim, I am ??P16 14:02:45 <Zakim> +Benjamin; got it 14:06:01 <Steven> Steven has joined #rdfa 14:06:14 <Steven> zakim, phone steven-617 14:06:14 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made 14:06:15 <Zakim> +Steven 14:06:41 <Knud> Knud has joined #rdfa 14:08:00 <Zakim> + +3539149aabb 14:08:51 <Zakim> sorry, Knud, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 14:08:59 <ivan> scribenick: ivan 14:09:01 <Knud> zakim, I am aabb 14:09:01 <Zakim> +Knud; got it 14:09:05 <Knud> zakim , mute me 14:09:09 <Steven> zakim, aabb is Knud 14:09:09 <Zakim> sorry, Steven, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb' 14:09:17 <ivan> zakim, mute Knud 14:09:17 <Zakim> Knud should now be muted 14:09:35 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-120 HTML5 and RDFa and CURIEs 14:09:37 <manu>- 120-objection-poll/results 14:09:57 <ivan> manu: if anyone here is also in the HTML5 WG... 14:09:58 <Knud> no 14:10:07 <ivan> ... put in your comment 14:10:21 <Knud> I don't think anyone in DERI is in it 14:10:37 <ivan> ... anything else to discuss? We have new comments from Henri Sivonen and James Graham that we should review. Toby should respond to HTML WG, I'll remember to send a tweet out about responding. 14:11:55 <manu> Topic: Overlap with RDF Working Group 14:12:13 <ivan> manu: currently we are having an in-depth discussion about json and rdf in json 14:12:17 <ivan> ... what it means, etc 14:12:33 <ivan> ... question came up on the alignment on the rdf(a) API 14:12:46 <ivan> ... there is a call there to parse 14:12:54 <ivan> ... we would like to have the same 14:13:07 <ivan> ... it would be good to have the two groups to get together and talk about it 14:13:18 <ivan> ... maybe this group should also discuss this 14:13:33 <ivan> ... there are a number of people in the RDF wg who are interested in the api 14:13:43 <ivan> ... we may want to lean on them to join this group 14:14:04 <manu> Ivan: I would think that we should wait a bit, there will be a F2F in mid-April in A'dam 14:14:26 <manu> Ivan: I think that one of the goals will be to clarify the directions for both groups - the discussion in RDF WG is to understand the direction. 14:15:05 <manu> Ivan: All of the discussions are around that. I hope that the RDF WG will have a clearer view after mid-April - hopefully after that the synergies between the groups will be known a bit better 14:15:55 <manu> Ivan: We'll have a clearer view of the intersection between the two groups. There are voices in the RDF WG for whom a JSON serialization is more N-Triples based in JSON. If that viewpoint prevails, there will be little overlap between that work and the work we're doing here. 14:16:06 <manu> Ivan: The F2F is on the 13th and 14th of April 14:16:52 <ivan> manu: do you know if the group went the more 'object based json round', then the right people to do that work is not around in the WG 14:17:02 <ivan> ... is that true? 14:18:42 <manu> Ivan: It is true that we have you, Nathan, Thomas Steiner and possibly Toby as people that are involved in JSON and JavaScript development. 14:19:48 <manu> Ivan: Other than that, we may not have the proper people to complete this work. Finding out the direction and target community seems to be the most difficult thing for RDF in JSON. 14:20:20 <manu> Ivan: Once that is decided, I have the impression that the JSON serialization is not rocket science... 14:20:45 <manu> Ivan: If we go JSON-LD - there are disagreements on the syntax, but nothing huge. 14:21:08 <manu> Ivan: If we go the JTriples route, that's the Talis direction and disagreements on syntax are not that huge either 14:21:21 <ivan> Are there any other comments on how best to proceed with this work? 14:21:23 <Benjamin> no 14:21:30 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-85: Projections and Property Groups 14:21:36 <trackbot> ISSUE-85 -- Determine whether both Projections and PropertyGroups are necessary -- open 14:21:36 <trackbot> 14:21:42 <manu> 14:23:02 <ivan> manu: based on our work we have experienced that having two different ways to describe the same confuses people and it is more complex than necessary 14:23:18 <ivan> ... I believe we can do a unified version which is fairly clean 14:23:31 <ivan> ... one concept that desribe RDF data in Javascript 14:23:54 <ivan> ... to access things via API or JSON should be the same 14:23:55 <ivan> q+ 14:24:31 <manu> Ivan: I'm concerned, how does JSON come into this picture. 14:24:56 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 14:25:08 <webr3> Zakim, i am IPcaller 14:25:08 <Zakim> ok, webr3, I now associate you with [IPcaller] 14:26:13 <manu> Ivan: We have a RDFa API, that has a parser... I have a parser API, why do we have a RDF in JSON API as well? 14:26:47 <ivan> manu: the general idea that people would not have to have an heavyweight api for json 14:26:51 <manu> var obj = rdfInJson.parse(jsonText); 14:27:39 <manu> { "name": "Ivan" } 14:27:43 <manu> obj.name 14:27:49 <manu> obj.name == "Ivan" 14:28:32 <manu> var obj = rdfa.getItemsBySubject("", { ... MAPPING ...}); 14:28:48 <manu> obj.name 14:29:21 <manu> var obj = rdf.buildObject("", { ... MAPPING ...}); 14:29:23 <manu> obj.name 14:30:28 <manu> Ivan: Ok, I understand - if the RDF WG decides that the only thing that they standardize is roughly the Talis JSON/RDF or JTriples 14:30:44 <manu> Ivan: rdfInJson.parse() should still be possible 14:31:20 <manu> Ivan: If I get my text as TURTLE, I should be able to get back the same type of "obj.name" stuff. 14:32:01 <manu> Manu: Yes, but what do these objects look like? 14:32:17 <manu> Ivan: JSON is a serialization, it's no different from TURTLE or RDF/XML 14:33:30 <manu> obj.name 14:33:40 <manu> obj.get(""); 14:33:45 <manu> obj.get("ex:foo"); 14:34:19 <webr3> Nathan: PropertyGroup and Projection should be the same interface, with no .properties attribute, get() should be a setter, and we need .getSubject on there - to all extents a simple object with getSubject, nothing more 14:34:31 <manu> Manu: the focus is on the object that is returned - what is it? Is it a Projection, is it a Property Group, is it a Graph? 14:34:35 <webr3> s/setter/getter 14:35:40 <ivan> manu: nathan, is the way that you say this will happen, if a person gives a mapping mechanism then you can create names on the object 14:35:52 <ivan> ... and otherwise you can get them with a get mechanism 14:37:38 <ivan> nathan: all the properties with the object should be the shortest name that the rdf mechanism and the curie mechanism gives you 14:37:56 <ivan> manu: that was the same kind of thinking 14:38:04 <ivan> ... what happens if there is no environment 14:38:34 <ivan> ... would they be able to pass a mapping (eg, foaf name should be mapped to name) 14:38:43 <ivan> ... people could also use the full URI 14:39:02 <manu> jsonText = { "name" : "Nathan" } 14:39:22 <manu> MAPPING = { "" : "name" } 14:39:38 <manu> var obj = api.toObject(jsonText, MAPPING); 14:39:45 <manu> Then you should be able to do: 14:40:02 <manu> obj.name and obj[""] 14:40:13 <manu> assume that you have an RDF environment 14:40:36 <manu> that environment specifies => { "foaf": "" } 14:40:44 <manu> then you should be able to do this: 14:40:58 <manu> obj.name and obj["foaf:name"] and obj[""] 14:41:28 <ivan> manu: nathan, is that what you were thinking about? 14:41:34 <ivan> nathan: something like that 14:41:51 <ivan> ... I was thinking of some sort of a profile object 14:42:02 <webr3> graph.toObject or api.toObject(graph) - with an optional attribute which you can pass in a profile 14:42:10 <ivan> ... and that would replace the mapping that would be optional 14:44:33 <manu> Ivan: I'd like to see this stuff in writing, to understand it better 14:45:53 <manu> 14:46:38 <manu> Nathan: We should clean up the editors drafts and start conversations from there. 14:46:44 <manu> Manu: I think that's a good idea. 14:48:42 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-86: Prefixes and Terms 14:48:50 <manu> 14:50:36 <manu> Manu: Do we want to simplify this - instead of prefix and term, we use "mapping"? 14:51:06 <Benjamin> I calle dit IriMap in my mail 14:52:16 <Benjamin> s/calle dit/called it 14:52:37 <ivan> q+ 14:52:40 <manu> Ivan: We don't have the concept of relative URIs... we shouldn't have them. 14:52:44 <manu> ack ivan 14:53:26 <manu> Ivan: One question/comment - I don't know how the other RDF environment handles this issue - it's the same, you have namespaces, but you can use it by itself - you can use it as a term or a prefix 14:53:47 <manu> Ivan: I don't know what Redland and the other systems do - we may want to follow those. 14:54:41 <ivan> manu: the only thing that may block us is if nathan hit an issue while implementing 14:55:55 <ivan> ... and checking other systems 14:56:02 <manu> ACTION: Nathan to contact RDF library authors to see how they handle term/prefix mappings. 14:56:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Contact RDF library authors to see how they handle term/prefix mappings. [on Nathan Rixham - due 2011-03-24]. 14:59:58 <manu> tinkster, please note your position/objection here: 15:00:28 <tinkster> Yes, I will do. 15:00:28 <Zakim> -ivan 15:01:27 <Zakim> -Steven 15:01:31 <Zakim> -Knud 15:01:33 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000163