14:58:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #grddl-wg
14:58:15 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-irc
14:58:34 <DanC> Zakim, this is GRDDL
14:58:34 <Zakim> DanC, I see SW_GRDDL()11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be GRDDL".
14:58:38 <DanC> Zakim, this will be GRDDL
14:58:38 <Zakim> ok, DanC; I see SW_GRDDL()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
14:58:42 <Zakim> SW_GRDDL()11:00AM has now started
14:58:46 <Zakim> +DanC
14:59:37 <Zakim> +??P3
14:59:48 <bwm> Zakim, ??p3 is bwm
14:59:48 <Zakim> +bwm; got it
15:01:44 <iand_> iand_ has joined #grddl-wg
15:03:14 <Zakim> +??P9
15:03:22 <ryager> ryager has joined #grddl-wg
15:03:22 <DanC> Zakim, ??P9 is Ian
15:03:22 <Zakim> +Ian; got it
15:03:29 <DanC> Zakim, take up item 1
15:03:30 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Convene GRDDL WG meeting of 2006-10-18T11:00-0400" taken up
15:03:42 <DanC> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Oct/0027.html
15:04:04 <DanC> I tweaked the agenda a bit; see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/weekly-agenda 1.49
15:04:06 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:04:11 <briansuda> Zakim [IPcaller] is briansuda
15:04:24 <briansuda> Zakim, [IPcaller] is briansuda
15:04:24 <Zakim> +briansuda; got it
15:04:28 <DanC> Regrets: DannyA, HarryH, FabienG
15:04:46 <Zakim> +Rachel_Yager
15:05:09 <DanC> regrets+ Ben Adida
15:05:54 <DanC> Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:05:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see DanC, bwm, Ian, briansuda, Rachel_Yager
15:06:08 <benadida> benadida has joined #grddl-wg
15:06:25 <Zakim> +Ben_Adida
15:07:07 <DanC> RESOLVED: to accept http://www.w3.org/2006/10/04-grddl-wg-minutes as a true record
15:07:08 <Zakim> +Murray_Maloney
15:07:56 <DanC> RESOLVED: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Oct/0023.html is a true record
15:08:08 <Zakim> +Chimezie_Ogbuji
15:08:26 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #grddl-wg
15:09:02 <DanC> Zakim, next item
15:09:02 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Cross-document Introduction" taken up
15:09:56 <DanC> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#intro v 1.120  2006/10/18 06:01:56 
15:10:43 <DanC> ACTION: DanC to flesh out ways to express author information in different markup languages [CONTINUES]
15:10:44 <DanC> some progress
15:11:34 <bwm_scribe> xhtml example removed to help text fit page better
15:12:00 <bwm_scribe> ?? has a stonger feeling that there should be an xhtml example
15:12:31 <bwm_scribe> ?? there are a lot of xhtml examples
15:12:47 <bwm_scribe> ??1 I can live with this - just wondering if other people had the same feeling
15:13:00 <bwm_scribe> danc, will think about it further
15:13:02 <iand_> that was my voice
15:13:16 <bwm_scribe> re ACTION:: iand to review Murray's suggested intro
15:13:24 <bwm_scribe> the intro has been revised
15:13:56 <bwm_scribe> iand: would like to continue action to review in new version within week
15:14:13 <bwm_scribe> ACTION:: iand to review Murray's suggested intro [CONTINUED]
15:15:17 <bwm_scribe> ?? some aspects of the intro (last edit) had a peice about Stephen King that I thought didn't make sense in a specifcation rather than a primer
15:15:47 <bwm_scribe> ??: what roles do the different documents play
15:16:18 <chimezie> bwm_scribe: that's me
15:16:40 <bwm_scribe> danc: I'm thinking that the spec readers will find a brief explanation of RDF useful
15:17:52 <bwm_scribe> murry?: one of the goals of a common introduction is that previously the different intro's were trying to say the same thing but saying it differently
15:18:20 <bwm_scribe> ... some of them drew value judgements about RDF that risked offending readers
15:18:38 <bwm_scribe> chimezie: can you provide an example?
15:18:58 <bwm_scribe> murray?: they said RDF enabled automation - but there's been automation for a while without RDF.
15:19:18 <bwm_scribe> ... tried to say the same things in a more neutral way
15:19:28 <bwm_scribe> ... laying out the background for a problem space
15:20:14 <bwm_scribe> ... suggests value is common form across different xml dialects
15:20:50 <bwm_scribe> ... experienced readers will skim intro, less experienced will read intro
15:21:17 <bwm_scribe> ... intro has a guide to the other documents to aid readers navigate the document set
15:21:39 <bwm_scribe> ... example removed last night after discussion with DanC
15:22:17 <bwm_scribe> chimezie: is the aim not to repeat intro?
15:22:38 <bwm_scribe> murray: my aim was to have a common intro -  only slightly taylored for each one.
15:23:15 <bwm_scribe> chimezie: seems to me like different docs need different intros
15:23:32 <bwm_scribe> danc: in the primer I don't want background, I want it to tell me what to type
15:23:51 <bwm_scribe> ??: should we explain the benefits of RDF in these documents
15:24:01 <iand> ?? is iand
15:24:15 <bwm_scribe> chimexie: I have issues with the explanation of RDF because it tries to add value to RDF.
15:24:27 <bwm_scribe> DanC: do you want the paragraph struck?
15:24:39 <bwm_scribe> chimezie: I would ike one para struck
15:24:59 <bwm_scribe> murray: if you take that out - it breaks the flow - need to remove the whole intro
15:25:15 <bwm_scribe> chimezie: I don't agree
15:25:24 <bwm_scribe> DanC: I disagree
15:25:32 <bwm_scribe> Murray: do you think its harmful?
15:26:17 <bwm_scribe> chimizie: my problem is that the text still tries to add value to RDF at the expense of other technologies
15:26:44 <bwm_scribe> chimezie: I think the problem is that we don't have consensus on the purpose of each document
15:26:59 <bwm_scribe> danc: we don't have to agree on that; we have to agree on the text
15:27:26 <bwm_scribe> Murray: I have proposed a cross set intro - but we haven't reached agreement on that
15:27:50 <bwm_scribe> ... the intro explains the bare minimum of what RDF is about
15:28:09 <bwm_scribe> ... I tried to ensure that the bit about RDF was not bragging
15:28:43 <bwm_scribe> chimezie: I have more of a concern if the language is about RDF; my issue with the introductions is really to do with where they are in the documents; its not a strong objection
15:28:58 <bwm_scribe> danc: if you get inspiration on how to change this pleas send mail
15:29:05 <DanC> Zakim, next item
15:29:05 <Zakim> agendum 3. "[#issue-output-formats] whether GRDDL transformations may produce RDF in a format other than RDF/XML" taken up
15:29:24 <bwm_scribe> Zakim, take up next item
15:29:24 <Zakim> agendum 3 was just opened, bwm_scribe
15:30:19 <bwm_scribe> Danc: I removed references to 'meanings'  and expressed things in terms of graphs - e.g. merging graphs
15:30:34 <bwm_scribe> ... it was more straightforward to talk about graphs than rdf/xml documents
15:31:08 <bwm_scribe> chimezie: I originally had that opinion, but for interoperability reasons it is better to have one format
15:31:34 <bwm_scribe> danc: interoperability is important, but we can address the format issue elsewhere
15:31:47 <bwm_scribe> ... our test cases will be rdf/xml
15:32:08 <bwm_scribe> chimezie: if you don't require it, then the processor has to cope
15:32:18 <bwm_scribe> danc: I don't think this increases the implementation burden
15:32:59 <bwm_scribe> iand?: most implementations run xslt and then have to parse the results
15:33:20 <bwm_scribe> ... the output of the xsl is a textual format usually rdf/xml - but it could be n3
15:33:27 <bwm_scribe> danc: does that make sense to you?
15:33:43 <bwm_scribe> ... the xslt process can set the output media type
15:34:01 <bwm_scribe> chimeze: not all xslt transforms can output a mime-type
15:34:56 <bwm_scribe> danc: the spec requires the output is an rdf graph - which implies there must be a mime-type
15:35:21 <bwm_scribe> murray: the transform may have a graph - then serialise it
15:35:46 <bwm_scribe> danc: as opposed to passing the graph over with an api call - yeah
15:36:26 <bwm_scribe> chimeze: there is a significant difference between outputing a graph and outputing a serialization of a graph which need thought through
15:36:27 <chimezie> the transformation algorithm for the most part is a syntactic transformation
15:37:31 <bwm_scribe> iand: the user sees a graph; how does the processor know how to output the graph
15:37:42 <bwm_scribe> danc: we'll show examples
15:37:52 <bwm_scribe> iand: what is the most interoperable way to do it
15:37:58 <bwm_scribe> danc: xslt 1.0 and rdf/xml
15:38:30 <bwm_scribe> chimezie: if the spec talks about graphs - it opens a can of worms
15:39:02 <bwm_scribe> ... if you require a specific syntax then there are fewer worms
15:39:35 <bwm_scribe> danc: the worms are there whatever you do - if the spec says rdf/xml and you get something else - the code still has to cope
15:40:16 <bwm_scribe> danc: I suggest you try working it out because it was not straightforward when I tried it
15:40:46 <bwm_scribe> chimezie: if you allow multiple syntaxes then the code is more complex
15:41:00 <bwm_scribe> murray: could we ahve a section on exposing the GRDDL results
15:41:35 <bwm_scribe> chimezie: murray you previously argued for 1 in and 1 out to make it easier to support multiple syntaxes
15:41:54 <bwm_scribe> murray: DanC's policy is to talk about what is in the spec
15:42:23 <bwm_scribe> chimezie: what does a processor have to spit out?
15:42:53 <bwm_scribe> murray: its your processor that is running - so you can write your code to assume what your processor does.
15:43:21 <bwm_scribe> chimezie: it works for xslt but not all transform languages can output a mime-type.
15:43:37 <bwm_scribe> ... if you have a transform which you refer to, say java script 
15:44:01 <bwm_scribe> ... which produces a concrete syntax
15:44:03 <bwm_scribe> ...
15:44:21 <bwm_scribe> danc: what the spec requires is that the transform output a graph
15:44:39 <bwm_scribe> chimezie: maybe I should formulate a test case and discuss later
15:44:59 <bwm_scribe> murray: do we need a section on implementation guideance on output
15:45:13 <bwm_scribe> danc: I think the market place will take care of this
15:45:30 <DanC> ACTION DanC: add a sample implementaiton appendix to the GRDDL spec
15:46:05 <bwm_scribe> danc: we are planning to release spec 24 Oct
15:46:18 <bwm_scribe> ... please support or abstain from that
15:46:30 <bwm_scribe> brian: do you need that now
15:46:43 <bwm_scribe> danc: I need an answer by the end fo the week
15:46:49 <Zakim> -Ben_Adida
15:46:49 <DanC> ACTION BenA: review grddl spec 1.120 by end of week
15:47:02 <bwm_scribe> Ben: ok I'll do that
15:47:29 <benadida> benadida has left #grddl-wg
15:47:36 <bwm_scribe> ACTION: chimezie develop test case to illustrate issues with output as graph rather than specific serialization.
15:49:01 <DanC> Zakim, next item
15:49:01 <Zakim> agendum 4. "toward GRDDL Spec Working Draft" taken up
15:50:21 <DanC> Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:50:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see DanC, bwm, Ian, briansuda, Rachel_Yager, Murray_Maloney, Chimezie_Ogbuji
15:50:59 <bwm_scribe> ian: would like to see released though have not fully reviewed
15:51:33 <bwm_scribe> danc: the question is "how do we feel about releasing the grddl spec on 24 Oct"
15:52:08 <bwm_scribe> rachel: sounds good but want to double check
15:52:16 <DanC> (critical path: BenA, RachaelY, ...)
15:52:33 <bwm_scribe> brianS: I trust editor to make changes
15:52:52 <DanC> (critical path: BenA, RachaelY, Chime)
15:52:53 <bwm_scribe> murray: authorize editor to take steps needed to get published and do not need to be in critical path
15:53:15 <bwm_scribe> chimize: would like to be in critical path and am happy with deadline
15:53:28 <DanC> PROPOSED: to publish 24 Oct, contingent on editor (DanC) satisfying comments to come from BenA, Chime, Rachael
15:53:53 <DanC> PROPOSED: to publish 24 Oct http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec 1.120 + edits by DanC, contingent on editor (DanC) satisfying comments to come from BenA, Chime, Rachael
15:54:39 <bwm_scribe> chime: will changes only be prompted by those on critical path
15:54:54 <bwm_scribe> danc: there are changes I expect to make, reviewing my @@ comments
15:55:25 <bwm_scribe> ... including fiture changes, citation cleanups, 
15:55:33 <bwm_scribe> murray: remove the log?
15:55:44 <bwm_scribe> danc: sometimes I trim but leave it there
15:55:55 <bwm_scribe> murray: awkward if you are printing
15:56:12 <bwm_scribe> danc: not all @@'s will be addressed
15:56:30 <bwm_scribe> seconded: chime
15:56:44 <bwm_scribe> no objections or abstentions
15:56:48 <bwm_scribe> so resolved
15:57:06 <DanC> Zakim, close this item
15:57:06 <Zakim> agendum 4 closed
15:57:08 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:57:08 <DanC> Zakim, agenda?
15:57:09 <Zakim> 5. Primer Document pending edits
15:57:10 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
15:57:12 <Zakim> 5. Primer Document pending edits
15:57:13 <Zakim> 6. [#issue-mt-ns]
15:57:15 <Zakim> 7. [#issue-base-param]
15:57:35 <DanC> Zakim, next item
15:57:35 <Zakim> agendum 5. "Primer Document pending edits" taken up
15:57:45 <bwm_scribe> iand: I am working on primer document edits
15:57:54 <DanC> ACTION: Iand to address comments on primer [CONTINUES]
15:58:00 <bwm_scribe> ... was held up by cvs access, but that is now fixed
15:58:06 <bwm_scribe> ... will respond to comments as I do the edits
15:58:25 <DanC> ACTION: Brian and Harry to produce additional running code for the second part of the primer [CONTINUES]
15:58:28 <bwm_scribe> danc: brian - you and harry have action to write code - any news
15:58:37 <bwm_scribe> brian: no progres yet
15:59:01 <bwm_scribe> brian: do we need to respond to comments on the public list
15:59:08 <bwm_scribe> iand: that's what I'll be doing
15:59:24 <bwm_scribe> murray: what sort of comments
15:59:41 <bwm_scribe> iand:  some editorial, some on how vcalendar works
15:59:53 <bwm_scribe> chime: was there a comment about an xml only example?
16:00:22 <bwm_scribe> danc: there was a comment from Michael U? Shall I take that
16:00:23 <DanC> ACTION DanC: respond to comment from Hausenblas, Michael http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2006OctDec/0005.html
16:00:24 <bwm_scribe> iand: yes please
16:00:47 <bwm_scribe> chime: is there some way I can help with base param issue
16:00:56 <bwm_scribe> danc: you are welcome to construct test cases
16:01:10 <bwm_scribe> chime: if that's how I can help, that's what I'll do
16:01:13 <ryager> I've to run.  Bye.
16:01:20 <DanC> Zakim, take up item base
16:01:20 <Zakim> agendum 7. "[#issue-base-param]" taken up
16:01:27 <Zakim> -Rachel_Yager
16:01:46 <bwm_scribe> ACTION: chime to help danc with test cases on base param issue.
16:02:01 <bwm_scribe> murray: is just for html documents
16:02:13 <bwm_scribe> chime: also for xml documents
16:02:26 <bwm_scribe> murray: does it go away if there is an explicit base
16:02:41 <DanC> ACTION: Danny to take testing test harness. [CONTINUES]
16:02:42 <bwm_scribe> chime: the issue what to do when it isn't clear what the base it - what do you do?
16:03:11 <DanC> ACTION: Murray to suggest what GRDDL spec issues are covered by XML Processing, suggestion on how to fix it. [CONTINUES]
16:03:28 <DanC> ACTION:Iand to construct a content negotiation test case [CONTINUES]
16:03:44 <bwm_scribe> propose to adjourn
16:03:53 <bwm_scribe> murray: seconded
16:03:55 <DanC> ADJOURN.
16:04:00 <DanC> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:04:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html DanC
16:04:14 <Zakim> -Murray_Maloney
16:04:17 <DanC> RRSAgent, make logs world-access
16:04:36 <Zakim> -Ian
16:04:54 <Zakim> -Chimezie_Ogbuji
16:05:08 <Zakim> -briansuda
16:05:23 <DanC> Chair: DanC
16:05:38 <Zakim> -DanC
16:05:44 <Zakim> SW_GRDDL()11:00AM has ended
16:05:44 <DanC> Meeting: GRDDL WG Weekly
16:05:48 <DanC> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:05:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html DanC
16:05:48 <Zakim> Attendees were DanC, bwm, Ian, briansuda, Rachel_Yager, Ben_Adida, Murray_Maloney, Chimezie_Ogbuji
16:06:12 <DanC> regrets- Ben
16:06:19 <DanC> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:06:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html DanC
16:09:21 <DanC> ok, brian, version of 2006/10/18 16:05:58 is what I suggest you work with.
16:09:28 <DanC> bwm_scribe, that is
16:09:36 <bwm_scribe> cool
17:02:42 <briansuda> briansuda has joined #grddl-wg
18:03:45 <Zakim> Zakim has left #grddl-wg