IRC log of grddl-wg on 2007-01-31

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:07:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #grddl-wg
16:07:26 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:09:22 [hhalpin]
hhalpin has joined #grddl-wg
16:11:19 [hhalpin]
Zakim, open item 5
16:11:19 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "[#issue-output-formats] whether GRDDL transformations may produce RDF in a format other than RDF/XML" taken up
16:12:02 [chimezie]
rssagent, begin
16:12:11 [chimezie]
RSSAgent, begin
16:12:18 [hhalpin]
RRSagent, begin
16:12:30 [hhalpin]
Zakim, open item 6
16:12:30 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "[#issue-mt-ns]" taken up
16:13:36 [hhalpin]
16:13:43 [hhalpin]
Murray's closure
16:14:03 [chimezie]
I think it is a reasonable silent statement
16:14:16 [bwm]
??: will xslt drive an xinclude process
16:14:33 [bwm]
16:14:51 [rreck]
rreck has joined #grddl-wg
16:15:22 [Zakim]
16:15:36 [bwm]
...: discusion of pipeline documents
16:16:10 [bwm]
hh: it would be good to get a review
16:16:25 [bwm]
... does anyone have any concerens, can we get consensus on it?
16:16:51 [hhalpin]
it's #faithful-infoset
16:18:22 [bwm]
bwm: does the spec talk about "faithful rendition"?
16:18:58 [bwm]
hh: yes
16:19:29 [bwm]
...: does faithful rendition entail "complete rendition"
16:19:42 [hhalpin]
From GRDDL Spec "By specifying a GRDDL transformation, the author of a document states that the transformation will provide a faithful rendition of the source document, or some portion of the source document, that preserves its meaning in RDF."
16:19:51 [bwm]
...: so it long as it doesn't I needn't worry
16:19:52 [chimezie]
I don't think it implies a 'complete' rendition
16:20:22 [rreck]
why not explicitly state "that its not implied"
16:20:43 [bwm]
hh: quotes from the spec "some portion of the document"
16:20:48 [bwm]
bwm: that covers it
16:21:15 [hhalpin]
maybe this "or some portion of the source document,"
16:21:22 [bwm]
xx: should we add words to say that it needn't be complete?
16:21:54 [bwm]
bwm: I think its covered in the para on faithful rendition
16:24:12 [hhalpin]
PROPOSAL: To close #faithful-infoset issue by adding Murray's paragraph as given by to the GRDDL Specification.
16:24:26 [hhalpin]
Zakim, who's on phone
16:24:26 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who's on phone', hhalpin
16:24:30 [hhalpin]
Zakim, who is on phone?
16:24:30 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, hhalpin.
16:24:35 [hhalpin]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:24:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see JohnClark, HarryH, chimezie, briansuda, bwm, rreck
16:24:45 [briansuda]
fine with me
16:24:52 [rreck]
im good
16:25:07 [bwm]
hh: holds vote
16:25:12 [hhalpin]
RESOLUTION: To close #faithful-infoset issue by adding Murray's paragraph as given by to the GRDDL Specification.
16:25:18 [hhalpin]
Zakim, open item 7
16:25:18 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "[#issue-base-param]" taken up
16:25:27 [DanC_lap]
please don't close faithful-infoset until chime's test work is done
16:25:46 [DanC_lap]
oops; too late
16:26:41 [bwm]
bwm: sorry no progress been too busy
16:26:49 [bwm]
hh: progress by next week?
16:26:52 [bwm]
bwm: I'll do my best
16:27:14 [DanC_lap]
who's got the action re faithful-infoset? the 0085 msg has language like "conformant processor" that can't be just pasted in
16:27:59 [DanC_lap]
but otherwise, I guess it's close enough
16:28:12 [hhalpin]
hhalpin has joined #grddl-wg
16:28:28 [hhalpin]
DanC, you have word-smithing discretion.
16:28:51 [hhalpin]
DanC, do you wish to take an action to wordsmith and add that paragraph to the spec?
16:28:58 [bwm]
danc: will you take the action to add murray's text with appropriate word smithing?
16:29:50 [bwm]
... the WG agreed that you should have freedom to wordsmith
16:30:08 [hhalpin]
ACTION: Harry to send DanC a message asking for DanC to add in Murray's paragraph with appropriate wordsmithing
16:30:10 [bwm]
ACTION: hh Ask DanC to add Murray's text with appropriate wordsmithing
16:30:28 [hhalpin]
Zakim, open item 8
16:30:28 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "Primer Document" taken up
16:30:46 [bwm]
hh: how is the healthcare stuff
16:30:59 [bwm]
chime: I sent a message but not much progress
16:31:26 [bwm]
... Ian is planning to get to it this Friday
16:31:36 [bwm]
... I believe
16:31:57 [hhalpin]
Zakim, open item 2
16:31:57 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "[#issue-html-nsdoc]" taken up
16:32:03 [bwm]
hh: Ian has sent a message about http headers
16:32:03 [hhalpin]
Zakim, open item 1
16:32:03 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Convene GRDDL WG meeting of 2007-01-23T11:00-0500" taken up
16:32:07 [hhalpin]
Zakim, open item 3
16:32:07 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "[#issue-http-header-links]" taken up
16:32:15 [hhalpin]
Let's look at Ian's latest message:
16:32:32 [hhalpin]
16:33:05 [chimezie]
Isn't the notion of interpeting HTTP headaer content out of scope of GRDDL?
16:33:17 [chimezie]
even if the starting point is just bytes?
16:34:02 [bwm]
hh: DanC thought it might be
16:34:16 [rreck]
if its in scope, i prefer option #2
16:34:22 [bwm]
xx: a client could just decide to do it
16:34:35 [bwm]
... a best practice
16:34:58 [bwm]
... general support for option 2
16:35:11 [bwm]
... would integrate better with software
16:35:36 [bwm]
hh: do we want to put an action on him to write text for the spec or the primer
16:36:01 [bwm]
chime: I think its very close to out of scope
16:36:37 [bwm]
ACTION: hh find out if its in scope
16:36:57 [briansuda]
brian agrees with chime, this only works via HTTP. When using over file:// then GRDDL is lost
16:37:11 [bwm]
bwm: does option 2 create a dependency
16:38:11 [bwm]
chime: given the fact we to go for last call in two weeks, that strengthens my feeling its out fo scope.
16:38:44 [bwm]
hh: Dan and Ian were pro this
16:38:54 [bwm]
... lets postpone this for next meeting
16:39:28 [hhalpin]
ACTION: HarryH to see if this is out-of-scope
16:40:08 [bwm]
??: process question - should we name a particular version
16:40:20 [john-l]
(that was Chime)
16:41:00 [bwm]
bwm: we postponed issues on RDFCore
16:41:09 [bwm]
hh: I'd rather not have postponed issues
16:41:26 [bwm]
chime: the WG can't do everything
16:41:49 [bwm]
hh: maybe the ietf involvement requires us to rule it out of scope
16:42:42 [bwm]
hh: can we get two people to review all three specs
16:43:00 [bwm]
... rreck you were going to read them
16:43:04 [bwm]
rr: yes I have been
16:43:10 [bwm]
... I've read two
16:43:25 [bwm]
hh: the primer and spec have had some pretty large changes
16:43:52 [hhalpin]
ACTION: Rreck to send his comments on the primer and spec to the public-grddl-wg.
16:44:04 [bwm]
bwm: what documents are going rec track
16:44:11 [bwm]
hh: all three
16:45:38 [bwm]
... we might want a co-editor to help DanC
16:46:04 [bwm]
... we asked before, but got no response
16:46:23 [bwm]
... if anyone is interested please raise your hand
16:48:04 [bwm]
chime: there is a big change with the introduction of rules
16:48:16 [bwm]
hh: did you find the rules helpful
16:48:20 [bwm]
chime: yes
16:48:36 [bwm]
... I just wondered if there was discussion of their introduction
16:48:54 [bwm]
hh: n3 rules don't have a formal semantic
16:49:12 [bwm]
... which makes it a bit dodgy to make them normative
16:49:24 [bwm]
... I don't ahve a personal objection to them
16:49:28 [bwm]
... but others might object
16:49:54 [bwm]
chime: I didn't say they were useful, I found them interesting
16:50:10 [bwm]
... I am not clear if they are informative or normative
16:50:21 [bwm]
hh: please bring this up on the list
16:50:43 [bwm]
hh: we asked Dan to state things as clearly and formally as possible and this is what he did
16:50:44 [hhalpin]
ACTION:Chime to ask question about rules
16:50:53 [bwm]
hh: I'm ready to close the meeting
16:51:02 [bwm]
hh: anything else
16:51:06 [Zakim]
16:51:06 [bwm]
16:51:09 [Zakim]
16:51:10 [hhalpin]
meeting adjourned
16:51:11 [Zakim]
16:51:15 [Zakim]
16:51:23 [hhalpin]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:51:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate hhalpin
16:51:46 [briansuda]
HarryH, what is the status of my/our action item? is Ian incorporating it?
16:52:09 [hhalpin]
IanD sent a message saying he would incorporate it by Friday.
16:52:14 [hhalpin]
You are out of the critical path.
16:52:25 [hhalpin]
If he doesn't get to it by Friday I'll just patch it in.
16:52:40 [briansuda]
let me know if there is anything you need from me, either GRDDL or FoaF-.vCard
16:58:27 [DanC_lap]
chime, did you finish the xinclude test stuff?
16:58:37 [DanC_lap]
harry, did you close the issue without those tests?
16:59:52 [Zakim]
17:00:39 [Zakim]
17:00:40 [Zakim]
SW_GRDDL()11:00AM has ended
17:00:41 [Zakim]
Attendees were JohnClark, HarryH, chimezie, briansuda, bwm, rreck
17:01:23 [hhalpin]
DanC, I asked in particular about the tests and the members of the WG felt that the issue could be closed without the tests, although people agreed that if possible the test-suite should be altered to allow multiple correct outputs.
17:03:00 [hhalpin]
Also, the other main question is re the use of http headers, people were not sure if that was in scope.
17:03:14 [hhalpin]
And if we should as the IETF or TAG etc.
17:03:22 [hhalpin]
In which case, there was fear that would delay things.
17:03:33 [hhalpin]
And so maybe the issue should just be closed as out-of-scope.
17:03:36 [DanC_lap]
when I called you yesterday, was I not 100% clear that the faithful-infoset issue should not be closed until the tests worked?
17:04:40 [hhalpin]
The action is on me to ask you about the resolution.
17:05:03 [DanC_lap]
er... did you put the question or not?
17:05:05 [hhalpin]
And you were clear, it's just that the WG felt like they could get consensus and they were not against the test suite per se.
17:05:22 [hhalpin]
Yes, I did put the question out very clearly about whether this should be contingent on the test-suite.
17:05:34 [hhalpin]
People felt like it should not be, but then the action is on me to ask you.
17:05:45 [hhalpin]
If you do not want to add the text in until the test suite is complete, that's fine.
17:05:50 [hhalpin]
and reasonable.
17:06:08 [hhalpin]
I think the WG was mostly concerned about the text, and they felt like Murray's text was fine.
17:06:24 [DanC_lap]
maybe we can handle it that way; i.e. as just a matter of priorities, without re-opening the issue
17:06:32 [hhalpin]
17:06:48 [hhalpin]
We have two weeks to get that test-suite working :)
17:07:11 [hhalpin]
And the WG just didn't want to continue discussing the text per se.
17:07:35 [DanC_lap]
so about http headers, and scope, yes, if we want to put the headers in GRDDL, we have to interact with the IETF. That's a cost/benefit thing we have to consider; there's no process thing that says "stop; you have no options."
17:07:57 [hhalpin]
However, if we want to get out into Last Call it would be nice to have that closed.
17:08:16 [hhalpin]
And I believe the IETF may not be so quick on communicating back to us.
17:08:23 [hhalpin]
But maybe they will.
17:08:34 [hhalpin]
WHo precisely should I e-mail in the IETF over this?
17:08:55 [hhalpin]
I mean, the IETF is kind of a more fluid body...
17:09:41 [DanC_lap]
the IETF people don't have horns. They're just people.
17:10:41 [hhalpin]
In fact, it's the same people mostly.
17:11:01 [DanC_lap]
does the WG want permission from the world to do headers? it doesn't work that way.
17:11:03 [hhalpin]
I could just e-mail the editors of the HTTP 1.0 and 1.1 RFCs, which is Fielding, TimBL, Mogul, Masinter, etc.
17:11:13 [DanC_lap]
no, there's an http header registry now
17:11:32 [hhalpin]
This is what the WG was not sure of - i.e. who to ask, and if anyone needed asking.
17:11:46 [hhalpin]
Where is the http header registry? Who is the owner?
17:12:17 [DanC_lap]
there will eventually be people to ask; but those people are going to want to see our spec. so the GRDDL WG has say whether it's willing to do the work to add headers to GRDDL before we go asking our peers for review/endorsement.
17:12:41 [hhalpin]
Mark Nottingham had a list at some point, but the link from his blog is broke...
17:13:07 [hhalpin]
Anyways, I think the WG felt like they did not fully understand the benefit either.
17:13:19 [hhalpin]
As IanD did not make the meeting.
17:14:12 [DanC_lap]
if Ian's proposal didn't get a critical mass of support, then we needn't bother figuring out the cost of IETF liaison
17:14:54 [hhalpin]
People felt supportive of option 2 from Ian's e-mail, but I think they felt it needed more context and they wanted maybe some use-cases.
17:15:08 [hhalpin]
And they were not sure of the cost of interacting with IETF.
17:15:39 [DanC_lap]
did anybody offer to implement it?
17:15:52 [hhalpin]
For example, should the interpretation of the header be done by the GRDDL client? This was a question.
17:16:23 [DanC_lap]
I don't get the question. of course the interpretation of the header is done by the GRDDL-aware agent.
17:16:50 [hhalpin]
Chime seemed to think it was something a traditional Web client did, and then used to invoke the GRDDL agent.
17:17:35 [hhalpin]
But I think what we should ask for next meeting is whether people can 1) Write a use-case and spec text and 2) implement and if someone answers yes to both the questions, we go for it, otherwise, the cost is to high.
17:18:06 [DanC_lap]
Ian's proposal included a use case: you've signed the document or whatever, so you can't change it.
17:18:42 [DanC_lap]
I guess it's reasonable to talk about it more since the advocates (Ian and, to some extent me, weren't there).
17:19:07 [hhalpin]
We will just beg Ian to come to the next telecon, and if he doesn't and we can't get an implementer, we drop.
17:19:25 [hhalpin]
I do think it's a good idea but if the energy isn't there we can't force it.
17:20:07 [hhalpin]
I'm happy to e-mail and do any IETF communication that's needed.
17:20:48 [DanC_lap]
I saw some hesitation about postponing issues. I think it's fine to postpone this issue, but I'd object to saying "it's a bad idea even for future GRDDL versions to add http headers"
17:21:09 [hhalpin]
There was a bit of confusion about "postponing" versus ruling "out of scope"
17:21:40 [DanC_lap]
is anybody arguing to rule it out of scope?
17:22:17 [hhalpin]
Chime thought it might be, but he also seemed to think it was a good idea.
17:22:32 [hhalpin]
He was worried about IETF issues mostly. As was bwm.
17:22:36 [hhalpin]
Anyways, gotta run!
17:23:01 [DanC_lap]
ok. hasta