See also: IRC log
ci: WCL covers most our requirements, except
for the snippets
... but we dicussed this already
... the assumption is that all sub-domains are also part of a claim
... this may be an issue
... it is not clear how sub-domains will be addressed (for example with regexp etc)
... they also define several requirements that are more general than ours
saz: "snippet" as in part of a web page/resource?
saz: this is not a requirement for EARL but more a feedback for WCL?
jk: no a requirement for pattern matching
resolution: send feedback to WCL that claims for snippets may be useful to consider
saz: do they address "delivery units"?
ci: no, only URI matching
saz: how mature is this, is this something we should wait for?
ci: is useful for more compact reports that do not contain all the detail on the relationships between the results
saz: johannes, any opinions on how useful this is?
jk: not sure if we should use just that for compacting purposes, but can see a use case and it may be useful
cv: content labeling is different from
... they are not getting to the real meat of the problem
... maybe we should submit our comments rather than the other way around
jl: no comments
saz: do we need to add/change something in EARL
1.0 in order to use this, or can we continue developing EARL 1.0?
... do we need to wait?
cv: don't think we should wait, especially considering our current resources
jl: don't think we need this stuff, so maybe better develop EARL 1.0 and see how we can use it once it is ready
ci: continue EARL 1.0, and see what we can do
with this at a later time
... it should not require radical changes to EARL 1.0
resolution: continue to monitor the development of the WCL URI matching, and continue to develop EARL 1.0 in parallel
saz: are they aware of the sub-domain ambiguity issue?
ci: it is in the requirement to address
sub-domains, but they are using RDF-CL which considers all sub-domains to be
part of a domain
... they will need to change RDF-CL accordingly
resolution: send WCL feedback that sub-domains need to be addressed in a non-ambigious way for u to be able to use this work
<scribe> ACTION: saz & ci work on response for WCL group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/19-er-minutes.html#action01]
SAZ: Section 4 on conformance is new, need to look in more detail, it's important: Question Section 3 - should it really be in the guide
CI: I agree it should be in the guide
CV: It's in the guide.
SAZ: Is there anything normative we need to say about extensibility?
CV: It's RDF
JK: Something would be good, but mostly in the guide
SAZ: Maybe something in the intro? to point at
the RDF Primer
... I don't think it needs its own section
JL: Agrees with everything above
<shadi> resolution: move "extensions" section to EARL 1.0 Guide, and add a line or two about exentsibility in the "introduction"
<shadi> direction for reading this draft effectively:
<shadi> 1. skip section 1
<shadi> 2. read over section 2
<shadi> 3. look carefully at section 4 and appnedix A
<shadi> 4. read over appendix B
<shadi> 5. rince and repeat
CI: Recalls open issue on testClasses and requirements - things you can pass or fail
JK: CI was right, chaals has the AI
SAZ: I'll check up, and we need to resolve before last call
<scribe> ACTION: on SAZ check up, chase chaals on test case issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/19-er-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: on ALL read the editors draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/19-er-minutes.html#action03]
<shadi> ACTION: everyone read latest EARL draft for next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/19-er-minutes.html#action04]