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
16:01:25 [DanC]
Zakim, this will be grddl
16:01:36 [DanC]
Zakim, read agenda from
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
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]
16:04:11 [Zakim]
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]
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]
16:06:52 [john-l]
HH: Regrets from Fabian
16:06:59 [john-l]
... and from Chime
16:07:05 [Zakim]
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]
-> minutes 7 Feb
16:07:35 [Zakim]
16:07:37 [Zakim]
+briansuda; got it
16:07:42 [HarryH]
APPROVED: 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:+ 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]
16:11:37 [HarryH]
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]
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]
16:22:47 [DanC]
ACTION DanC: address rreck's comments in
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]
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
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]
16:38:28 [john-l]
16:38:53 [Zakim]
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... ...
16:40:18 [iand]
16:40:25 [DanC]
16:40:52 [DanC]
<p>This following link provides the statement : <a
16:40:52 [DanC]
16:40:52 [DanC]
href="">extract-rdf.xsl</a>, <a
16:40:52 [DanC]
rel="profile" href="">profile</a></p
16:41:33 [DanC]
<link rel="transformation"
16:41:33 [DanC]
href="" /
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
16:44:59 [DanC]
(b) whether 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
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 >< ? 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]
17:35:18 [DanC]
17:35:46 [Zakim]
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]
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 DanC
17:42:02 [Zakim]
17:42:07 [Zakim]
17:42:08 [Zakim]
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]
17:42:18 [rreck]
17:42:21 [DanC]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:42:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate DanC
17:42:24 [danja]
17:42:27 [john-l]
So what do I do with the minutes now?
17:42:33 [Zakim]
17:43:13 [DanC]
you grab a copy of , knock the diagnostics off the bottom, make any other edits that you like, and send it as an attachment to, 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]
17:43:54 [DanC]
RRSAgent, stop