IRC log of grddl-wg on 2006-10-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:58:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #grddl-wg
14:58:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to
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]
14:59:37 [Zakim]
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]
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]
15:04:04 [DanC]
I tweaked the agenda a bit; see 1.49
15:04:06 [Zakim]
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]
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]
15:07:07 [DanC]
RESOLVED: to accept as a true record
15:07:08 [Zakim]
15:07:56 [DanC]
RESOLVED: is a true record
15:08:08 [Zakim]
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] 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]
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 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
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]
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]
16:04:00 [DanC]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:04:00 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate DanC
16:04:14 [Zakim]
16:04:17 [DanC]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
16:04:36 [Zakim]
16:04:54 [Zakim]
16:05:08 [Zakim]
16:05:23 [DanC]
Chair: DanC
16:05:38 [Zakim]
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 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 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]
17:02:42 [briansuda]
briansuda has joined #grddl-wg
18:03:45 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #grddl-wg