16:01:16 RRSAgent has joined #grddl-wg 16:01:16 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/02/14-grddl-wg-irc 16:01:25 Zakim, this will be grddl 16:01:36 Zakim, read agenda from http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/weekly-agenda 16:01:50 heeere Zakim 16:02:08 Zakim has joined #grddl-wg 16:02:10 bwm has joined #grddl-wg 16:02:12 Zakim, this will be grddl 16:02:14 Zakim, read agenda from http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/weekly-agenda 16:02:42 ok, DanC, I see SW_GRDDL()11:00AM already started 16:02:45 HarryH has joined #grddl-wg 16:02:50 working on it, DanC 16:03:02 agenda+ Convene GRDDL WG meeting of 2007-02-14T11:00-0500 16:03:11 agendum 1 added 16:03:19 Zakim, who is on the phone? 16:03:20 agenda+ [#issue-http-header-links] 16:03:24 agendum 2 added 16:03:28 agenda+ GRDDL Spec: Last Call 16:03:32 agendum 3 added 16:03:34 agenda+ Test cases for GRDDL (Perhaps needed for Last Call) 16:03:36 agendum 4 added 16:03:38 agenda+ Primer Document: Going To Last Call? 16:03:40 agendum 5 added 16:03:42 agenda+ Use-Case Document: Going To Last Call? 16:03:46 agendum 6 added 16:03:48 done reading agenda, DanC 16:03:50 + +1.703.861.aabb 16:03:56 +DanC 16:04:11 +??P34 16:04:27 On the phone I see Harry, +1.831.402.aaaa, +1.703.861.aabb, DanC, ??P34 16:04:38 Zakim, aaaa is JohnClark 16:04:38 Zakim, take up item 1 16:04:41 +[IPcaller] 16:04:49 Anyone *want* to be scribe? 16:04:54 Zakim, pick a scribe 16:05:25 HarryH: asking for someone to scribe 16:05:27 +JohnClark; got it 16:05:31 agendum 1. "Convene GRDDL WG meeting of 2007-02-14T11:00-0500" taken up 16:05:49 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose DanC 16:06:18 Chair: chair: HarryH 16:06:29 scribe: JohnClark 16:06:34 +Murray_Maloney 16:06:52 HH: Regrets from Fabian 16:06:59 ... and from Chime 16:07:05 +[IPcaller.a] 16:07:09 Zakim, IPcaller.a is briansuda 16:07:18 PROPOSED: to approve GRDDL WG Weekly -- 07 Feb 2007 as a true record 16:07:27 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/att-0088/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html minutes 7 Feb 16:07:35 +Ian_Davis 16:07:37 +briansuda; got it 16:07:42 APPROVED: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/att-0088/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html minutes 7 Feb 16:07:42 Zakim +Ian_Davis is the true record 16:07:54 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:07:54 On the phone I see Harry, JohnClark, +1.703.861.aabb, DanC, ??P34, [IPcaller], Murray_Maloney, briansuda, Ian_Davis 16:08:07 Zakim, aabb is rreck 16:08:07 +rreck; got it 16:08:18 Zakim, ??p34 is bwm 16:08:18 +bwm; got it 16:08:32 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:08:32 On the phone I see Harry, JohnClark, rreck, DanC, bwm, [IPcaller], Murray_Maloney, briansuda, Ian_Davis 16:08:38 Zakim, [IPcaller] is danja 16:08:38 +danja; got it 16:08:58 Zakim, next item 16:08:58 agendum 2. "[#issue-http-header-links]" taken up 16:09:04 thanks Harry - you're a quicker typist ;-) 16:09:05 Zakim, who is on the phone? 16:09:07 On the phone I see Harry, JohnClark, rreck, DanC, bwm, danja, Murray_Maloney, briansuda, Ian_Davis 16:09:12 * ACTION: IETF Link and Profile Headers to be included as "feature at risk", and dropped if they are not approved by IETF by time of move to Proposed Recommendation. 16:09:21 HH: This is my action 16:10:02 Zakim, passcode? 16:10:02 the conference code is 47335 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), Simone 16:10:12 ... keep this as a feature at risk with a strict timeline? 16:11:37 +[IPcaller] 16:11:37 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/ 16:11:48 Zakim, [IPcaller] is Simone 16:11:48 +Simone; got it 16:12:37 ACTION: HarryH to e-mail Ivan to double-check this. 16:13:15 The question is whether to accept a schedule risk to add a 2 month candidate recommendation phase. 16:13:34 before going to proposed recommendation. 16:14:21 PROPOSAL: Is to keep the headers and add a 2 month candidate recommendation phase. 16:15:04 PROPOSAL: Is to keep the headers but do not add a 2 month candidate recommendation. 16:15:15 Any opinions? 16:15:24 (I don't think the header can be done without the 2 month CR phase.) 16:15:38 ??: If the headers are sound, then we should include them in the spec 16:15:52 s/??:/Murray:/ 16:16:54 bwm: No dependencies in the way. 16:17:41 Murray: What happens if we don't include this feature? 16:17:47 HH: We go straight from CR to R 16:18:26 Murray: Another risk is backtracking based on feedback if we stick with the feature 16:18:50 Zakim, is Ian here? 16:18:50 probably, DanC; Ian_Davis arrived 11 minutes ago 16:19:15 Ian: Likes the feature, as discussed 16:19:34 ... If the IETF process doesn't complete, it's a small amount of work to take it out 16:20:55 Zakim, next item 16:20:55 agendum 3. "GRDDL Spec: Last Call" taken up 16:21:49 HH: Do the current tests cover RDF/XML docs well enough? 16:22:22 HH: Other comments addressed? 16:22:25 ??: Mine were minor 16:22:32 -Murray_Maloney 16:22:47 ACTION DanC: address rreck's comments in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/0042.html 16:23:19 John: Thumbs up on the spec 16:23:50 q+ to note section 5 GRDDL for HTML Profiles isn't done 16:24:05 danja: Thumbs up ... 16:24:11 +Murray_Maloney 16:24:46 DanC: There is still stuff not done. 16:24:55 HH: Can it be done soon? 16:25:03 DanC: Yes, but they're normative. 16:25:44 DanC: Particularly see Section 5. 16:26:27 Zakim, mute me 16:26:28 danja should now be muted 16:26:30 DanC: Does the GRDDL profile get processed by this mechanism? 16:27:00 HH: What is the difference between this and the namespace mechanism? 16:27:16 DanC: You don't follow your nose to the GRDDL profile URI in this case 16:28:59 --- questions arise on how namespace documents work 16:29:57 DanC: PO document, GRDDL agent goes to NS doc which says "world is flat"; is that part of a GRDDL result for the original doc? 16:30:02 Zakim, unmute me 16:30:02 danja should no longer be muted 16:30:50 John: Isn't that the way the spec works? 16:30:52 DanC: Nope 16:31:07 currently the GRDDL spec *only* lifts namespaceTransformation triples from namespace documents. 16:31:36 But doesn't it then use those to create GRDDL results from the original doc (that could include "world is flat")? 16:33:34 DanC: We've agreed that section 3 is ok. 16:33:56 ... but there is still a question about section 5 16:35:04 DanC: What happens when there are multiple profiles? 16:35:12 ... Does this question even matter? 16:36:13 jjc's comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007JanMar/0040.html 16:36:22 "because I don't have a hard coded 16:36:22 rule for profileTransformation, but rely on the GRDDL transform of the 16:36:22 GRDDL profile." 16:37:01 DanC: There may be some implementor's confusion here 16:37:48 ... I need to go over it again to make sure this mechanism is sound. 16:38:23 -JohnClark 16:38:28 Crap. 16:38:53 +JohnClark 16:38:57 I just sent mail that I'm satisfied that issue-mt-ns has been addressed. 16:40:12 looking for eRDF details... http://esw.w3.org/topic/CustomRdfDialects ... 16:40:18 http://purl.org/NET/erdf/profile 16:40:25 http://purl.org/NET/erdf/profile 16:40:52

This following link provides the statement : rel="profileTransformation" 16:40:52 href="http://purl.org/NET/erdf/extract-rdf.xsl">extract-rdf.xsl, rel="profile" href="http://purl.org/NET/erdf/profile">profile

href="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/glean-profile" / 16:42:53 DanC: May want a standard library of transformations 16:42:59 ACTION Ian: clarify profileTransformation for JJC 16:43:12 "if an information resource ?D has an XHTML representation whose profile attribute refers to ?PROFILE, then any GRDDL result of ?PROFILE is a GRDDL result of ?D" 16:43:30 HH: Remove that from the spec? 16:44:30 HH: Do we have enough guidance to sort this issue out? 16:44:47 possible new issues: (a) whether rules in section 5. GRDDL for HTML Profiles apply to http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view 16:44:59 (b) whether http://www.w3.org/2003/g/glean-profile should be in the standard library 16:45:17 possible tests for "no, namespace documen triples aren't part of grddl results" 16:45:23 and likewise profiles 16:45:58 DanC: We're comfortable with the namespace document mechanism? 16:47:31 possible test for exactly which triples are in grddl results of http://www.w3.org/2003/g/glean-profile 16:47:59 So, separating the transformation triples from the namespace, not a bug but a feature. 16:49:36 ACTION: danja is sketches the test in e-mail and bwm checks in it, but not required in last call. 16:49:48 which test being "no, namespace documen triples aren't part of grddl results" 16:50:28 HH: We don't have consensus on last call due to JJC's security issues and namespace document questions 16:51:56 DanC: Do we want to reopen discussion on the "GRDDL-aware agent" conformance label? 16:53:55 "GRDDL-aware agent" = "a 16:53:56 software system which implements the mechanisms described in this 16:53:56 document". 16:55:04 Zakim, mute me 16:55:04 danja should now be muted 16:55:30 DanC: "The GRDDL marketplace want to shop for 'GRDDL-aware agents'" 16:56:06 ... but I'm concerned about the costs, which have largely been dealt with by JJC's proposal 16:57:50 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:57:50 On the phone I see Harry, rreck, DanC, bwm, danja (muted), briansuda, Ian_Davis, Simone, Murray_Maloney, JohnClark 16:57:50 IanD: Can we incorporate JJC's proposal as implementation advice instead of using a CL? 16:58:21 s/iand/bwm/ 17:00:04 indeed, "GRDDL-aware agents MUST support XSLT1" is something that might come up 17:00:19 HH: will we have to tighten the spec if we use a conformance label? 17:00:30 Zakim, unmute me 17:00:30 danja should no longer be muted 17:01:18 abstain 17:01:46 DanC: poll: conformance label, or no? 17:02:05 i vote for conformance labels 17:02:44 y, a a, n, y, ... 17:04:06 Murray: spec is good right now, but a CL would be a valuable tool in the marketplace 17:04:16 y, a a, n, y, y/n, 17:05:35 y, a a, n, y, y/n, y/n... 17:07:59 DanC: Status quo is "gee, this could be dangerous" 17:08:16 HH: JJC's proposal gives specifics, and would require a conformance label to enforce 17:10:39 \me and the question is should we write "You MUST do this to call yourself a GRDDL" 17:10:44 aside: in practice a GRDDL-aware agent may return different results for a given source document at different points in time (e.g. downstream profiles/transforms may 404) 17:12:22 Murray: isn't there a risk that such a chance would require more time? 17:12:33 s/chance/change/ 17:13:01 DanC: I think there's a good chance this could be done quickly 17:17:34 FabienG has joined #grddl-wg 17:18:41 HH: And we return to the idea of not including conformance labels 17:19:06 Murray: - wants to see what Dan comes up with 17:19:27 ... What about a separate document defining a "GRDDL-aware agent"? 17:20:48 -Ian_Davis 17:21:49 HH: ... make a tech report out of the test suite, with conformance labels there 17:23:05 HH: risk of losing momentum 17:23:43 DanC: But implementations are proceeding regardless 17:24:57 ACTION: DanC write the draft "conformance label" text, and then johnL and rreck and bwm (jeremy) will then re-read spec. 17:25:18 HH: Other open issues? 17:25:30 Zakim, next item 17:25:30 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, HarryH 17:25:38 q+ 17:25:43 ack danc 17:25:44 DanC, you wanted to note section 5 GRDDL for HTML Profiles isn't done 17:25:44 ack DanC 17:25:52 queue= 17:25:52 ack HarryH 17:25:56 Zakim, next item 17:26:02 agendum 4. "Test cases for GRDDL (Perhaps needed for Last Call)" taken up 17:26:08 -Murray_Maloney 17:26:40 HH: created RDF/XML test cases 17:27:08 DanC: marker for "maximal" GRDDL result? 17:27:21 HH: JJC provided HTTP header test case 17:27:42 ... What if links in headers and in doc conflict? 17:28:10 ACTION DanC: add GRDDL header spec section 17:28:17 DanC: Spec still needs HTTP header text 17:28:24 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/0057.html 17:28:28 HH: What has priority? Doc, or header... 17:28:34 DanC: Don't want "priorities" 17:29:41 bwm: Aren't they additive? 17:30:07 ... working on getting the test into the test suite 17:30:07 ACTION: bwm (jeremy) to put http header test in test suite 17:30:16 bwm, pls make a subdirectory under /td/ before you add the .htaccess, ok? 17:30:31 Zakim, next item 17:30:31 agendum 5. "Primer Document: Going To Last Call?" taken up 17:30:47 HH: Use N3 or not? 17:30:53 bwm: Rec track for this? 17:30:58 HH: Straw poll said yes 17:31:10 Rec track for Primer, it's easier to find. 17:31:11 ... (easier to find) 17:32:00 (er... what's with FROM >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc29/david-erdf.rdf< ? that's bogus SPARQL syntax) 17:32:42 i concur. RDF/XML 17:34:44 bwm: Found primer hard to read 17:35:18 s/bwm/danny/ 17:35:18 s/bwm:/danja:/ 17:35:46 -bwm 17:36:12 (have I got some sort of browser bug? "A diagram indicating the sequence of steps described for obtaining RDF from a document using an explicit link to the transformation as described in the preceding paragraph") 17:37:11 danja: Only blocking problem is the XFN RDF/XML currently in the text 17:37:31 rreck: Submitted changes, haven't heard back yet 17:38:11 HH: Willing to fix easy problems 17:38:18 ACTION: HarryH to check those primer fixes in. 17:38:38 Zakim, next item 17:38:38 agendum 6. "Use-Case Document: Going To Last Call?" taken up 17:38:55 nope, i sent my suggestions 17:39:06 briansuda, happy with use-case document? 17:39:13 danja: Thumbs up, generally; suggestions submitted 17:39:14 i'm happy 17:39:18 OK.\ 17:39:23 Meeting Adjourned. 17:39:58 Is that enough to turn Zakim off? 17:40:14 RRSAgent, make logs world-access 17:40:26 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:40:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/02/14-grddl-wg-minutes.html DanC 17:42:02 -briansuda 17:42:07 -JohnClark 17:42:08 -Simone 17:42:09 Zakim, list attendees 17:42:09 As of this point the attendees have been Harry, +1.831.402.aaaa, +1.703.861.aabb, DanC, JohnClark, Murray_Maloney, Ian_Davis, briansuda, rreck, bwm, danja, Simone 17:42:13 Meeting: GRDDL Weekly 17:42:17 -danja 17:42:18 bubye 17:42:21 RRSAgent, draft minutes 17:42:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/02/14-grddl-wg-minutes.html DanC 17:42:24 bye 17:42:27 So what do I do with the minutes now? 17:42:33 -rreck 17:43:13 you grab a copy of http://www.w3.org/2007/02/14-grddl-wg-minutes.html , knock the diagnostics off the bottom, make any other edits that you like, and send it as an attachment to public-grdd-wg@w3.org, with subject something like "GRDDL minutes 15 Feb for review" 17:43:36 danja has joined #grddl-wg 17:43:37 No problem. 17:43:51 thanks 17:43:54 RRSAgent, stop