See also: IRC log, agenda
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jan/0014.html minutes 10 Jan
RESOLUTION: to accept minutes 10 Jan
HH: my laptop is kaput
RESOLUTION: to meet 24 Jan, chime to scribe, regrets Murray
Harry: where did this come from? what are the positions?
DanC: I added it while thinking about RDFa... some plans for RDFa involve adding a pointer from the XHTML namespace document to an RDFa transformation
danja: why treat XHTML special? what about SVG?
Murray: a better way would be for GRDDL processors to have config files... e.g. in an HL7 context, they'll want to cache HL7 namespaces...
Chime: let's be explicit in one of 2 ways: (1) it's a stopping point; there's no transformations there (2) there's a transformation there, e.g. RDFa
DanC: I think config files are a reasonable implementation approach, but as for the spec, that can be endorsed silently, under an implicit "do The Right Thing"
Ron: what's the downside of being silent?
DanC: one risk is that future
implementations will follow current implementations, ...
... which don't check the XHTML namespace documents; then RDFa folks try to deploy a transformation at the XHTML namespace document, and the grddl implementations would lose.
Danny: how about some sort of "you should check that your copies are reasonably current"
DanC: I think a health-warning like that is appropriate; are you willing to draft something?
Danny: I think so
<scribe> ACTION: Danja to draft a health warninng about caching namespace documents. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/17-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action01]
RESOLUTION: to postpone issue-tx-element
HH: we have adopted consistent
terminology: GRDDL aware agent, source document, result
... though not conformance label yet
<chimezie> My niave interpretation is that the spec defines what an agent is
RESOLUTION: to use consistent vocabulary, but not use them as conformance labels.
<danja> for ref : http://www.mnot.net/blog/2006/06/22/link
<scribe> ACTION: IanD to propose some details for GRDDL links in HTTP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/17-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action02]
<chimezie> DanC: I'm unable to pull from homer.w3.org:8123
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to give Brian McBride CVS access [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/17-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action03]
<scribe> ACTION: HarryH to check in a test case on content negotiation [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/17-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action04]
DanC: some progress on EARL
3 actions continue
<scribe> ACTION: Murry to draft paragraph giving us caveat for faithful infoset issue closure. [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/17-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action05]
current spec is: "If an information resource IR is represented by an XML document whose root node is" ...
<danja> brb (log on fire)
chime: is it coherent to say that both the xincluding-using and the not-xinclude-using outcomes are grddl resutls?
Murray: yes, they're both GRDDL results
DanC: I think that's bad web architecture to allow this ambiguity, but I probably wouldn't object
<scribe> ACTION: Chime to work on details of 2 allowed results of xinclude test [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/17-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action06]
Harry: I'm having trouble running this test
<scribe> ACTION: Danny to test #base-param and e-mail group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/17-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action07]
<scribe> ACTION:Chime's add HL7 plain XML health care use-case and check it into test suite. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/17-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action08]
HH: comments have asked for (1) plain XML, not XHTML, (2) something with non-trivial entialment
<scribe> ACTION: Chime to propose some primer text for the hl7 case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/17-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action09]
<briansuda> sure, i email Ian and CC WG
HH: Ian, please [link rq files
<scribe> ACTION: Fabien to post to sawsdl list relevant questions about RDF mapping and relationship to GRDDL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/17-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action10]
fabien, continue that one? or withdraw?
<scribe> -- continues
HH: note SAWSDL expanded scope to not just WSDL but also XML Schema. So this seems important.
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to add a sample implementation appendix to the GRDDL spec. [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/17-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action11]