IRC log of grddl-wg on 2007-02-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:01:16 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #grddl-wg
16:01:16 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/02/14-grddl-wg-irc
16:01:25 [DanC]: Zakim, this will be grddl
16:01:36 [DanC]: Zakim, read agenda from http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/weekly-agenda
16:01:50 [DanC]: heeere Zakim
16:02:08 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #grddl-wg
16:02:10 [bwm]: bwm has joined #grddl-wg
16:02:12 [DanC]: Zakim, this will be grddl
16:02:14 [DanC]: Zakim, read agenda from http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/weekly-agenda
16:02:42 [Zakim]: ok, DanC, I see SW_GRDDL()11:00AM already started
16:02:45 [HarryH]: HarryH has joined #grddl-wg
16:02:50 [Zakim]: working on it, DanC
16:03:02 [Zakim]: agenda+ Convene GRDDL WG meeting of 2007-02-14T11:00-0500
16:03:11 [Zakim]: agendum 1 added
16:03:19 [john-l]: Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:20 [Zakim]: agenda+ [#issue-http-header-links]
16:03:24 [Zakim]: agendum 2 added
16:03:28 [Zakim]: agenda+ GRDDL Spec: Last Call
16:03:32 [Zakim]: agendum 3 added
16:03:34 [Zakim]: agenda+ Test cases for GRDDL (Perhaps needed for Last Call)
16:03:36 [Zakim]: agendum 4 added
16:03:38 [Zakim]: agenda+ Primer Document: Going To Last Call?
16:03:40 [Zakim]: agendum 5 added
16:03:42 [Zakim]: agenda+ Use-Case Document: Going To Last Call?
16:03:46 [Zakim]: agendum 6 added
16:03:48 [Zakim]: done reading agenda, DanC
16:03:50 [Zakim]: + +1.703.861.aabb
16:03:56 [Zakim]: +DanC
16:04:11 [Zakim]: +??P34
16:04:27 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Harry, +1.831.402.aaaa, +1.703.861.aabb, DanC, ??P34
16:04:38 [john-l]: Zakim, aaaa is JohnClark
16:04:38 [DanC]: Zakim, take up item 1
16:04:41 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
16:04:49 [HarryH]: Anyone *want* to be scribe?
16:04:54 [HarryH]: Zakim, pick a scribe
16:05:25 [HarryH]: HarryH: asking for someone to scribe
16:05:27 [Zakim]: +JohnClark; got it
16:05:31 [Zakim]: agendum 1. "Convene GRDDL WG meeting of 2007-02-14T11:00-0500" taken up
16:05:49 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose DanC
16:06:18 [HarryH]: Chair: chair: HarryH
16:06:29 [HarryH]: scribe: JohnClark
16:06:34 [Zakim]: +Murray_Maloney
16:06:52 [john-l]: HH: Regrets from Fabian
16:06:59 [john-l]: ... and from Chime
16:07:05 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller.a]
16:07:09 [briansuda]: Zakim, IPcaller.a is briansuda
16:07:18 [HarryH]: PROPOSED: to approve GRDDL WG Weekly -- 07 Feb 2007 as a true record
16:07:27 [DanC]: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/att-0088/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html minutes 7 Feb
16:07:35 [Zakim]: +Ian_Davis
16:07:37 [Zakim]: +briansuda; got it
16:07:42 [HarryH]: APPROVED: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/att-0088/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html minutes 7 Feb
16:07:42 [HarryH]: Zakim +Ian_Davis is the true record
16:07:54 [DanC]: Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:07:54 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Harry, JohnClark, +1.703.861.aabb, DanC, ??P34, [IPcaller], Murray_Maloney, briansuda, Ian_Davis
16:08:07 [DanC]: Zakim, aabb is rreck
16:08:07 [Zakim]: +rreck; got it
16:08:18 [bwm]: Zakim, ??p34 is bwm
16:08:18 [Zakim]: +bwm; got it
16:08:32 [DanC]: Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:08:32 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Harry, JohnClark, rreck, DanC, bwm, [IPcaller], Murray_Maloney, briansuda, Ian_Davis
16:08:38 [HarryH]: Zakim, [IPcaller] is danja
16:08:38 [Zakim]: +danja; got it
16:08:58 [HarryH]: Zakim, next item
16:08:58 [Zakim]: agendum 2. "[#issue-http-header-links]" taken up
16:09:04 [danja]: thanks Harry - you're a quicker typist ;-)
16:09:05 [Simone]: Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:09:07 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Harry, JohnClark, rreck, DanC, bwm, danja, Murray_Maloney, briansuda, Ian_Davis
16:09:12 [HarryH]: * 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 [john-l]: HH: This is my action
16:10:02 [Simone]: Zakim, passcode?
16:10:02 [Zakim]: 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 [john-l]: ... keep this as a feature at risk with a strict timeline?
16:11:37 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
16:11:37 [HarryH]: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/
16:11:48 [Simone]: Zakim, [IPcaller] is Simone
16:11:48 [Zakim]: +Simone; got it
16:12:37 [HarryH]: ACTION: HarryH to e-mail Ivan to double-check this.
16:13:15 [HarryH]: The question is whether to accept a schedule risk to add a 2 month candidate recommendation phase.
16:13:34 [HarryH]: before going to proposed recommendation.
16:14:21 [HarryH]: PROPOSAL: Is to keep the headers and add a 2 month candidate recommendation phase.
16:15:04 [HarryH]: PROPOSAL: Is to keep the headers but do not add a 2 month candidate recommendation.
16:15:15 [HarryH]: Any opinions?
16:15:24 [DanC]: (I don't think the header can be done without the 2 month CR phase.)
16:15:38 [john-l]: ??: If the headers are sound, then we should include them in the spec
16:15:52 [DanC]: s/??:/Murray:/
16:16:54 [HarryH]: bwm: No dependencies in the way.
16:17:41 [john-l]: Murray: What happens if we don't include this feature?
16:17:47 [john-l]: HH: We go straight from CR to R
16:18:26 [john-l]: Murray: Another risk is backtracking based on feedback if we stick with the feature
16:18:50 [DanC]: Zakim, is Ian here?
16:18:50 [Zakim]: probably, DanC; Ian_Davis arrived 11 minutes ago
16:19:15 [john-l]: Ian: Likes the feature, as discussed
16:19:34 [john-l]: ... If the IETF process doesn't complete, it's a small amount of work to take it out
16:19:42 [HarryH]: IanD: give it a 2 month wait.
16:20:55 [HarryH]: Zakim, next item
16:20:55 [Zakim]: agendum 3. "GRDDL Spec: Last Call" taken up
16:21:49 [john-l]: HH: Do the current tests cover RDF/XML docs well enough?
16:22:22 [john-l]: HH: Other comments addressed?
16:22:25 [john-l]: ??: Mine were minor
16:22:32 [Zakim]: -Murray_Maloney
16:22:47 [DanC]: ACTION DanC: address rreck's comments in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/0042.html
16:23:19 [john-l]: John: Thumbs up on the spec
16:23:50 [DanC]: q+ to note section 5 GRDDL for HTML Profiles isn't done
16:24:05 [john-l]: danja: Thumbs up ...
16:24:11 [Zakim]: +Murray_Maloney
16:24:46 [john-l]: DanC: There is still stuff not done.
16:24:55 [john-l]: HH: Can it be done soon?
16:25:03 [john-l]: DanC: Yes, but they're normative.
16:25:44 [john-l]: DanC: Particularly see Section 5.
16:26:27 [danja]: Zakim, mute me
16:26:28 [Zakim]: danja should now be muted
16:26:30 [john-l]: DanC: Does the GRDDL profile get processed by this mechanism?
16:27:00 [john-l]: HH: What is the difference between this and the namespace mechanism?
16:27:16 [john-l]: DanC: You don't follow your nose to the GRDDL profile URI in this case
16:28:59 [john-l]: --- questions arise on how namespace documents work
16:29:57 [john-l]: 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 [danja]: Zakim, unmute me
16:30:02 [Zakim]: danja should no longer be muted
16:30:50 [john-l]: John: Isn't that the way the spec works?
16:30:52 [john-l]: DanC: Nope
16:31:07 [DanC]: currently the GRDDL spec *only* lifts namespaceTransformation triples from namespace documents.
16:31:36 [john-l]: But doesn't it then use those to create GRDDL results from the original doc (that could include "world is flat")?
16:33:34 [john-l]: DanC: We've agreed that section 3 is ok.
16:33:56 [john-l]: ... but there is still a question about section 5
16:35:04 [john-l]: DanC: What happens when there are multiple profiles?
16:35:12 [john-l]: ... Does this question even matter?
16:36:13 [DanC]: jjc's comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007JanMar/0040.html
16:36:22 [DanC]: "because I don't have a hard coded
16:36:22 [DanC]: rule for profileTransformation, but rely on the GRDDL transform of the
16:36:22 [DanC]: GRDDL profile."
16:37:01 [john-l]: DanC: There may be some implementor's confusion here
16:37:48 [john-l]: ... I need to go over it again to make sure this mechanism is sound.
16:38:23 [Zakim]: -JohnClark
16:38:28 [john-l]: Crap.
16:38:53 [Zakim]: +JohnClark
16:38:57 [bwm]: I just sent mail that I'm satisfied that issue-mt-ns has been addressed.
16:40:12 [DanC]: looking for eRDF details... http://esw.w3.org/topic/CustomRdfDialects ...
16:40:18 [iand]: http://purl.org/NET/erdf/profile
16:40:25 [DanC]: http://purl.org/NET/erdf/profile
16:40:52 [DanC]: <p>This following link provides the statement : <a
16:40:52 [DanC]: rel="profileTransformation"
16:40:52 [DanC]: href="http://purl.org/NET/erdf/extract-rdf.xsl">extract-rdf.xsl</a>, <a
16:40:52 [DanC]: rel="profile" href="http://purl.org/NET/erdf/profile">profile</a></p
16:41:33 [DanC]: <link rel="transformation"
16:41:33 [DanC]: href="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/glean-profile" /
16:42:53 [john-l]: DanC: May want a standard library of transformations
16:42:59 [DanC]: ACTION Ian: clarify profileTransformation for JJC
16:43:12 [HarryH]: "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 [john-l]: HH: Remove that from the spec?
16:44:30 [john-l]: HH: Do we have enough guidance to sort this issue out?
16:44:47 [DanC]: 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 [DanC]: (b) whether http://www.w3.org/2003/g/glean-profile should be in the standard library
16:45:17 [DanC]: possible tests for "no, namespace documen triples aren't part of grddl results"
16:45:23 [DanC]: and likewise profiles
16:45:58 [john-l]: DanC: We're comfortable with the namespace document mechanism?
16:47:31 [DanC]: possible test for exactly which triples are in grddl results of http://www.w3.org/2003/g/glean-profile
16:47:59 [HarryH]: So, separating the transformation triples from the namespace, not a bug but a feature.
16:49:36 [HarryH]: ACTION: danja is sketches the test in e-mail and bwm checks in it, but not required in last call.
16:49:48 [DanC]: which test being "no, namespace documen triples aren't part of grddl results"
16:50:28 [john-l]: HH: We don't have consensus on last call due to JJC's security issues and namespace document questions
16:51:56 [john-l]: DanC: Do we want to reopen discussion on the "GRDDL-aware agent" conformance label?
16:53:55 [danja]: "GRDDL-aware agent" = "a
16:53:56 [danja]: software system which implements the mechanisms described in this
16:53:56 [danja]: document".
16:55:04 [danja]: Zakim, mute me
16:55:04 [Zakim]: danja should now be muted
16:55:30 [john-l]: DanC: "The GRDDL marketplace want to shop for 'GRDDL-aware agents'"
16:56:06 [john-l]: ... but I'm concerned about the costs, which have largely been dealt with by JJC's proposal
16:57:50 [DanC]: Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:57:50 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Harry, rreck, DanC, bwm, danja (muted), briansuda, Ian_Davis, Simone, Murray_Maloney, JohnClark
16:57:50 [john-l]: IanD: Can we incorporate JJC's proposal as implementation advice instead of using a CL?
16:58:21 [iand]: s/iand/bwm/
17:00:04 [DanC]: indeed, "GRDDL-aware agents MUST support XSLT1" is something that might come up
17:00:19 [john-l]: HH: will we have to tighten the spec if we use a conformance label?
17:00:30 [danja]: Zakim, unmute me
17:00:30 [Zakim]: danja should no longer be muted
17:01:18 [briansuda]: abstain
17:01:46 [john-l]: DanC: poll: conformance label, or no?
17:02:05 [rreck]: i vote for conformance labels
17:02:44 [DanC]: y, a a, n, y, ...
17:04:06 [john-l]: Murray: spec is good right now, but a CL would be a valuable tool in the marketplace
17:04:16 [DanC]: y, a a, n, y, y/n,
17:05:35 [DanC]: y, a a, n, y, y/n, y/n...
17:07:59 [john-l]: DanC: Status quo is "gee, this could be dangerous"
17:08:16 [john-l]: HH: JJC's proposal gives specifics, and would require a conformance label to enforce
17:10:39 [HarryH]: \me and the question is should we write "You MUST do this to call yourself a GRDDL"
17:10:44 [danja]: 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 [john-l]: Murray: isn't there a risk that such a chance would require more time?
17:12:33 [john-l]: s/chance/change/
17:13:01 [john-l]: DanC: I think there's a good chance this could be done quickly
17:17:34 [FabienG]: FabienG has joined #grddl-wg
17:18:41 [john-l]: HH: And we return to the idea of not including conformance labels
17:19:06 [john-l]: Murray: - wants to see what Dan comes up with
17:19:27 [john-l]: ... What about a separate document defining a "GRDDL-aware agent"?
17:20:48 [Zakim]: -Ian_Davis
17:21:49 [john-l]: HH: ... make a tech report out of the test suite, with conformance labels there
17:23:05 [john-l]: HH: risk of losing momentum
17:23:43 [john-l]: DanC: But implementations are proceeding regardless
17:24:57 [HarryH]: ACTION: DanC write the draft "conformance label" text, and then johnL and rreck and bwm (jeremy) will then re-read spec.
17:25:18 [john-l]: HH: Other open issues?
17:25:30 [HarryH]: Zakim, next item
17:25:30 [Zakim]: I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, HarryH
17:25:38 [HarryH]: q+
17:25:43 [DanC]: ack danc
17:25:44 [Zakim]: DanC, you wanted to note section 5 GRDDL for HTML Profiles isn't done
17:25:44 [HarryH]: ack DanC
17:25:52 [DanC]: queue=
17:25:52 [HarryH]: ack HarryH
17:25:56 [HarryH]: Zakim, next item
17:26:02 [Zakim]: agendum 4. "Test cases for GRDDL (Perhaps needed for Last Call)" taken up
17:26:08 [Zakim]: -Murray_Maloney
17:26:40 [john-l]: HH: created RDF/XML test cases
17:27:08 [john-l]: DanC: marker for "maximal" GRDDL result?
17:27:21 [john-l]: HH: JJC provided HTTP header test case
17:27:42 [john-l]: ... What if links in headers and in doc conflict?
17:28:10 [DanC]: ACTION DanC: add GRDDL header spec section
17:28:17 [john-l]: DanC: Spec still needs HTTP header text
17:28:24 [HarryH]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/0057.html
17:28:28 [john-l]: HH: What has priority? Doc, or header...
17:28:34 [john-l]: DanC: Don't want "priorities"
17:29:41 [john-l]: bwm: Aren't they additive?
17:30:07 [john-l]: ... working on getting the test into the test suite
17:30:07 [HarryH]: ACTION: bwm (jeremy) to put http header test in test suite
17:30:16 [DanC]: bwm, pls make a subdirectory under /td/ before you add the .htaccess, ok?
17:30:31 [HarryH]: Zakim, next item
17:30:31 [Zakim]: agendum 5. "Primer Document: Going To Last Call?" taken up
17:30:47 [john-l]: HH: Use N3 or not?
17:30:53 [john-l]: bwm: Rec track for this?
17:30:58 [john-l]: HH: Straw poll said yes
17:31:10 [HarryH]: Rec track for Primer, it's easier to find.
17:31:11 [john-l]: ... (easier to find)
17:32:00 [DanC]: (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 [rreck]: i concur. RDF/XML
17:34:44 [john-l]: bwm: Found primer hard to read
17:35:18 [john-l]: s/bwm/danny/
17:35:18 [DanC]: s/bwm:/danja:/
17:35:46 [Zakim]: -bwm
17:36:12 [DanC]: (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 [john-l]: danja: Only blocking problem is the XFN RDF/XML currently in the text
17:37:31 [john-l]: rreck: Submitted changes, haven't heard back yet
17:38:11 [john-l]: HH: Willing to fix easy problems
17:38:18 [HarryH]: ACTION: HarryH to check those primer fixes in.
17:38:38 [HarryH]: Zakim, next item
17:38:38 [Zakim]: agendum 6. "Use-Case Document: Going To Last Call?" taken up
17:38:55 [briansuda]: nope, i sent my suggestions
17:39:06 [HarryH]: briansuda, happy with use-case document?
17:39:13 [john-l]: danja: Thumbs up, generally; suggestions submitted
17:39:14 [briansuda]: i'm happy
17:39:18 [HarryH]: OK.\
17:39:23 [HarryH]: Meeting Adjourned.
17:39:58 [john-l]: Is that enough to turn Zakim off?
17:40:14 [DanC]: RRSAgent, make logs world-access
17:40:26 [DanC]: RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:40:26 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/02/14-grddl-wg-minutes.html DanC
17:42:02 [Zakim]: -briansuda
17:42:07 [Zakim]: -JohnClark
17:42:08 [Zakim]: -Simone
17:42:09 [DanC]: Zakim, list attendees
17:42:09 [Zakim]: 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 [DanC]: Meeting: GRDDL Weekly
17:42:17 [Zakim]: -danja
17:42:18 [rreck]: bubye
17:42:21 [DanC]: RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:42:21 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/02/14-grddl-wg-minutes.html DanC
17:42:24 [danja]: bye
17:42:27 [john-l]: So what do I do with the minutes now?
17:42:33 [Zakim]: -rreck
17:43:13 [DanC]: 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]: danja has joined #grddl-wg
17:43:37 [john-l]: No problem.
17:43:51 [DanC]: thanks
17:43:54 [DanC]: RRSAgent, stop