IRC log of swbp on 2005-02-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:57:48 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swbp
15:57:48 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:57:59 [Ralph]
15:58:23 [Ralph]
15:58:29 [Ralph]
Chair: Ben Adida
15:59:00 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #swbp
15:59:55 [Ralph]
Regrets: Mark Birbeck, Jeremy Carroll
16:01:36 [Ralph]
16:01:46 [Ralph]
conf code overlap
16:01:59 [Ralph]
I see
16:02:29 [Zakim]
SW_BPD(html)11:00AM has now started
16:02:32 [Ralph]
16:02:34 [DanC]
DanC has joined #swbp
16:02:36 [Zakim]
16:02:40 [Zakim]
16:02:51 [Zakim]
16:03:33 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: RDF/XHTML 23 Feb
16:04:17 [DanC]
16:04:20 [DanC]
agenda + status of RDF/A
16:04:23 [Zakim]
16:04:26 [DanC]
agenda + GRDDL
16:04:36 [DanC]
agenda -2
16:04:37 [DanC]
agenda -1
16:04:47 [DanC]
agenda + status of RDF/A [Ben_Adida]
16:04:54 [DanC]
agenda + GRDDL [Ben_Adida]
16:04:58 [DanC]
agenda + TAG update
16:05:07 [DanC]
agenda + TP Prep
16:05:17 [benadida]
benadida has joined #swbp
16:05:24 [Ralph]
zakim, who's here?
16:05:24 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ralph, Dom, DanC, Ben_Adida
16:05:25 [Zakim]
On IRC I see benadida, DanC, Zakim, RRSAgent, dom, Ralph
16:05:35 [DanC]
Regrets: JeremyC, MarkB
16:05:51 [DanC]
Zakim, agenda?
16:05:51 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
16:05:53 [Zakim]
1. status of RDF/A [from Ben_Adida via DanC]
16:05:55 [Zakim]
2. GRDDL [from Ben_Adida via DanC]
16:05:56 [Zakim]
3. TAG update [from DanC]
16:05:57 [Zakim]
4. TP Prep [from DanC]
16:06:25 [DanC]
Zakim, take up item 1
16:06:25 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "status of RDF/A" taken up [from Ben_Adida via DanC]
16:06:45 [Ralph]
Ben: the last official word about RDF/A was at the W3C AC meeting the start of December
16:07:11 [Ralph]
... according to Steven Pemberton, the XHTML 2.0 Last Call WD is dependent upon getting RDF/A into the WD
16:08:28 [Ralph]
DanC: WGs are supposed to publish something every 3 months and the HTML WG is past that time
16:09:24 [DanC]
(hmm... roadmap update? nope. $Date: 2004/09/15 10:54:53 $ )
16:12:04 [Ralph]
Ben: should the RDFHTML TF take up GRDDL?
16:12:13 [Ralph]
DanC: yes! I am shopping this around to various communities
16:12:30 [Ralph]
... specific customers include RDDL
16:13:21 [Ralph]
-> Resource Directory Description Language
16:13:34 [Ralph]
DanC: RDDL uses XML and XLink
16:13:48 [Ralph]
... introduces terms 'nature' and 'purpose'
16:14:23 [Ralph]
... DTD is a related resource; RDDL would say 'has nature DTD'
16:14:53 [Ralph]
... natures are like rdf Classes, purposes are like rdf Properties
16:15:57 [Ralph]
... Henry Thompson, editor of XML Schema spec, responsible for the W3C XML Schema validation service, has added RDDL support to the validation service
16:16:20 [Ralph]
... so the W3C XML Schema validator will follow pointers from namespace documents using RDDL
16:16:38 [Ralph]
... this makes RDDL a useful case for GRDDL
16:16:55 [Ralph]
... there exist transformations from RDDL to RDF
16:17:15 [Ralph]
... Henry has swapped this in in the context of TAG discussions
16:17:45 [Ralph]
Dom: GRDDL is currently published as a Coordination Group Note
16:18:13 [DanC]
(er... RDDL was one of N)
16:18:13 [Ralph]
... one goal for taking GRDDL into the RDFHTML TF is to give it more standing
16:19:02 [Ralph]
-> Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages (GRDDL)
16:19:23 [Ralph]
DanC: unclear if "CG Note" status is enough standing for the RDDL community
16:20:57 [DanC]
-> Creative Commons GRDDL story / demonstration Eric Miller, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 15 October 2004, rev. 2 February 2005 (in progress)
16:22:24 [DanC]
-> Integrating Data from Multiple XML Schemas with GRDDL and RDF (slides, by DanC, in progress)
16:22:50 [Ralph]
DanC: (continuing on applications)... trackback
16:23:16 [Ralph]
... trackback has an RDF idiom
16:23:22 [Ralph]
... uses RDF in XML comments
16:23:38 [Ralph]
... would be nice to take the comment markup out and use XSLT
16:24:29 [Ralph]
... for these users, making the containing document be XML is apparently too high a barrier
16:24:56 [TomSaywer]
boy... trackback in wordpress with GRDDL... fun fun fun!
16:25:44 [Ralph]
... also SHOE community
16:26:15 [Ralph]
... really, SHOE/DAML/etc.
16:26:27 [Ralph]
... some DAML users are still out there
16:27:14 [Ralph]
... Creative Commons
16:27:27 [DanC]
16:27:35 [Ralph]
Ben: most Creative Commons uses are Dublin Core with some additional properties
16:27:53 [Ralph]
... but most people will not change the profile attribute in the document head
16:28:35 [Ralph]
Ralph: Eric Miller and Michael Sperberg-McQueen are working on a proposal that would permit the GRDDL profile to be named in the XML Schema
16:28:42 [Ralph]
... that still doesn't cover the trackback case
16:28:52 [Ralph]
Dom: another option is an HTTP header
16:28:57 [DanC]
(hmm... are there wordpress plug-ins for creative commons? Joe Lambda's blog could model all this cool stuff)
16:29:27 [Ralph]
... also could recommend to implementors of GRDDL processors to implement some default behaviors for given doctypes
16:29:45 [DanC]
(guerrilla standardization ;-)
16:30:19 [Ralph]
Dom: e.g. recommend to GRDDL implementors to apply certain transforms automatically to XML pages
16:30:36 [Ralph]
Ben: like finding rel='license'
16:30:42 [Ralph]
DanC: I won't be party to that
16:30:54 [Ralph]
Ralph: yeah, ugh
16:33:44 [Ralph]
Ben: what about proposing to the WG to publish GRDDL as a WG Note?
16:34:29 [Ralph]
DanC: who would benefit from this? Not clear that the RDDL community feels strongly that the current status is insufficient.
16:35:03 [Ralph]
Dom: there is some work that I as editor would like to do to the spec
16:35:49 [Ralph]
... and if it is republished, I think it should be as a WG document (e.g. WG Working Draft), not as a CG document
16:36:19 [Ralph]
Ben: Recommendation status would cement this approach as more than "just a patch"
16:39:17 [DanC]
agenda + GRDDL test suite (at least FYI)
16:39:24 [Ralph]
Ralph: perhaps a formal WG Working Draft is a necessary step to put, e.g. the Dublin Core community, on notice to give formal feedback
16:39:39 [DanC]
agenda + XTech milestone
16:39:49 [Ralph]
ACTION: Ralph query Tom Baker about DCMI interest in GRDDL as a solution
16:40:27 [Ralph]
Ralph: I support bringing GRDDL into the WG
16:40:43 [Ralph]
-> [ALL] IMPORTANT: ftf preparations and agenda outline
16:41:56 [DanC]
Zakim, take up item 4
16:41:56 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "TP Prep" taken up [from DanC]
16:42:12 [DanC]
Ben: hmm... I have a conflict with that time on Thu... any flexibility? I'll look into it
16:42:13 [Ralph]
Ben: I have a conflict with the 1400-1530 Thursday f2f slot
16:44:38 [Ralph]
DanC: the WG could discuss GRDDL outside of the HTML WG joint discussion but it would be nice to have them present
16:45:01 [dom]
Ralph: what input do you expect from the HTML WG on GRDDL?
16:45:08 [Ralph]
ACTION: Ben ask Mark and Steven for documents that should be reviewed prior to our f2f
16:45:13 [dom]
DanC: e.g. whether there is enough space in this town
16:45:29 [DanC]
16:45:31 [dom]
Dom: note that RDF/A is technically a subset of GRDDL
16:45:41 [DanC]
Zakim, close item 2
16:45:41 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
16:45:42 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:45:44 [Zakim]
3. TAG update [from DanC]
16:45:47 [DanC]
Zakim, close item 4
16:45:47 [Zakim]
agendum 4 closed
16:45:47 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:45:48 [Zakim]
3. TAG update [from DanC]
16:45:54 [DanC]
Zakim, close item 3
16:45:54 [Zakim]
agendum 3 closed
16:45:55 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:45:57 [Zakim]
5. GRDDL test suite (at least FYI) [from DanC]
16:46:25 [Ralph]
zakim, take up agendum 5
16:46:25 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "GRDDL test suite (at least FYI)" taken up [from DanC]
16:46:40 [Ralph]
Dan: Dom has done some work on a test suite
16:46:57 [Ralph]
... this would be particularly important for REC-track work
16:47:10 [DanC]
-> Start of a GRDDL Test Suite Dominique Hazaƫl-Massieux (Wednesday, 2 February)
16:47:47 [DanC]
-> XTech
16:48:05 [Ralph]
DanC: Dom's proposal to talk about GRDDL at XTech was accepted
16:48:37 [DanC]
25-27 May
16:49:57 [DanC]
agenda + GRDDL REC Track? [Ralph]
16:50:01 [DanC]
Zakim, take up agendum 7
16:50:01 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "GRDDL REC Track?" taken up [from Ralph via DanC]
16:50:25 [DanC]
Ralph: enough time in the BP chartered duration?
16:51:19 [Ralph]
Dan: from an architectural point of view, if the profile points to something then we can find license for the extracted RDF
16:51:28 [Ralph]
... this does not oblige anyone on the receiving end
16:51:45 [Ralph]
... e.g. "if I gather data from the Web, should I know about GRDDL?"
16:51:58 [Ralph]
... MSpace from Southampton is an example
16:52:08 [dom]
16:52:11 [Ralph]
... should MSpace slurp up GRDDL documents?
16:52:22 [Ralph]
16:52:45 [Ralph]
... if GRDDL were a W3C Recommendation it would be a clear statement to mSpace-like developers
16:53:14 [Ralph]
... so this Rec? question is really "is GRDDL best practice for publishing data in the Web"?
16:55:04 [Ralph]
Ralph: what unresolved issues may still exist in GRDDL?
16:55:09 [Ralph]
DanC: reuse of fragment identifiers
16:55:37 [DanC]
<baseball#patek> :avg .325.
16:56:13 [Ralph]
... some readings of the HTML spec say #patek is a piece of HTML markup
16:58:15 [DanC]
(hmm... CR might be just the signal we need to get DC, CC, RDDL, etc. to vote with their feet)
16:59:25 [Ralph]
PROPOSE to take GRDDL to SWBP as Rec-track
16:59:36 [Ralph]
DanC: are we quorate to make this decision here?
16:59:56 [Ralph]
ACTION: Ben put the GRDDL to Rec? question to the TF mailing list
17:01:20 [DanC]
(do give a clear deadline. 7 days is traditional, but given the meeting next week, 3 working days seems fair.)
17:02:07 [DanC]
17:02:17 [DanC]
Zakim, close item 5
17:02:17 [Zakim]
agendum 5 closed
17:02:19 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:02:19 [DanC]
Zakim, close item 6
17:02:20 [Zakim]
6. XTech milestone [from DanC]
17:02:20 [DanC]
Zakim, close item 7
17:02:21 [Zakim]
agendum 6 closed
17:02:24 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
17:02:27 [Zakim]
7. GRDDL REC Track? [from Ralph via DanC]
17:02:28 [Zakim]
agendum 7 closed
17:02:29 [Zakim]
I see nothing remaining on the agenda
17:03:43 [dom]
regrets from me for the TF during WG F2F
17:03:47 [dom]
(I have a conflicting meeting)
17:04:38 [DanC]
17:05:06 [Zakim]
17:09:28 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swbp
17:12:12 [Zakim]
17:13:05 [Zakim]
17:13:06 [Zakim]
17:13:06 [Zakim]
SW_BPD(html)11:00AM has ended
17:13:07 [Zakim]
Attendees were Ralph, Dom, DanC, Ben_Adida
17:13:15 [DanC]
2005-02-26 lv ORD 17:29 ar BOS 20:46 Saturday AMERICAN AIRLINES #874
17:13:20 [DanC]
17:13:31 [Ralph]
rrsagent, bye
17:13:31 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items:
17:13:31 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ralph query Tom Baker about DCMI interest in GRDDL as a solution [1]
17:13:31 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:13:31 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben ask Mark and Steven for documents that should be reviewed prior to our f2f [2]
17:13:31 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:13:31 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Ben put the GRDDL to Rec? question to the TF mailing list [3]
17:13:31 [RRSAgent]
recorded in