See also: IRC log
<rreck> me
<briansuda> i was second
<HarryH> scribe: Chime
<HarryH> PROPOSED: to approve GRDDL WG Weekly --4 April 2007 as a true record
<HarryH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Apr/att-0014/04-grddl-wg-minutes.html
<john-l> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Apr/att-0039/04-grddl-wg-minutes.html
<HarryH> So note the real minutes are here:
<rreck> thanks
<HarryH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Apr/att-0039/04-grddl-wg-minutes.html
<HarryH> RESOLVED to approve GRDDL WG Weekly --4 April 2007 as a true record
<HarryH> RESOLVED : approved GRDDL WG Weekly --4 April 2007 as a true record
<HarryH> Reck will be scribe next meeting.
<HarryH> Jeremy?
<HarryH> Jeremy can scribe next meeting.
<HarryH> DanC?
<HarryH> Without DanC, I suggest we move to Test Cases.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Apr/0031.html
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#projectsSpreadsheet
input: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/projects.xml
outpu: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/projects.rdf
prior approval: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Nov/att-0096/22-grddl-wg-minutes.html#item03
<HarryH> PROPOSAL: Approve http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#projectsSpreadsheet as a valid test for test-case document.
<HarryH> RESOLVED: Approved http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#projectsSpreadsheet as a valid test for test-case document.
jjc: prefer test approval for material, and review WD as a whole (with test text)
john-l: same preference
<HarryH> ACTION: john-l to add text to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#projectsSpreadsheet [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/11-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<HarryH> ACTION: john-l is to add text to any tests many text where deemed appropriate. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/11-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action02]
Remaining tests with prior approval:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#atomttl1
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#xmlWithGrddlAttribute
<HarryH> PROPOSED: To reapprove in bulk all tests with prior approval.
<HarryH> RESOLVED: all tests with prior approval approved.
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#base-param
<HarryH> PROPOSED: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#base-param as a valid test for test-case document.
<HarryH> RESOLVED: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#base-param as a valid test for test-case document.
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#rdfa1
HarryH: we should approve this noting that the stylesheet may be updated
FabienG: 1) difference btwn implementation 2) RDFa spec is not stable
jjc: text should reflect that the transform does not reflect a general RDFa transform
FabienG: works fine WRT the test case
FabienG: should the transform predicate be included in the output?
FabienG: at F2F - the transform is ignored
<HarryH> PROPOSAL: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#rdfa1 as a valid test for test-case document.
<HarryH> ACTION: john-l to make sure rdfa1 test case text reflects current state of rdfa [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/11-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action03]
<HarryH> APPROVED: Given caveat about current state of rdfa, http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#rdfa1 as a valid test for test-case document.
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#title_author
<HarryH> PROPOSAL: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#title_author is a valid test for test-case document.
<HarryH> RESOLVED: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#title_author is a valid test for test-case document.
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#multiprofile
<head profile="http://purl.org/NET/erdf/profile
<HarryH> PROPOSAL: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#multiprofile is a valid test for test-case document.
http://www.w3.org/2006/03/hcard">
jjc: possibility that changes to the profile effected validity of output
<john-l> +1
jjc: we should copy these profiles to our test repository
<john-l> (+1 to that, rather)
jjc: would like to see the test modified in that regard
<HarryH> ACTION: jjc to do modify http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#multiprofile to keep all profiles in W3C space. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/11-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action04]
<jjc> ^W3C^GRDDL WG^
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#inline
<HarryH> PROPOSAL: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#inline is a valid test for test-case document.
<HarryH> RESOLVED: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#inline is a valid test for test-case document.
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#sq2
the ns document is served as application/rdf+xml (no controversy there)
<HarryH> PROPOSED: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#inline is a valid test for test-case document.
<HarryH> RESOLVED: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#inline is a valid test for test-case document.
<HarryH> Chime: What all the controversial ones have is a "multiple output" sort of one.
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#multiple-output
the tests with maximal results are less ambiguous
jjc: for the langconneg ppl probably pass the english version but not the german version
jjc: is there a maximal result of the merge of the english and german GRDDL results?
to calculate the maximal result, dont yo uneed to know the accept headers up front?
jjc: technically possible
<DanC_lap> (I'd be happy to leave the german test in the someday pile.)
scribe: not neccessary for testing phase
<DanC_lap> (actually, the IETF rules is included in W3C process, as a SHOULD)
<DanC_lap> (is discussion of our request for CR/PR on the agenda?)
<jjc> (transparent content negotiation)
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#xinclude
jjc: Jena reader passes the noxinclude version
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007AprJun/0010.html
[[[
* http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/#noxinclude failed
ok: since raptor does do xinclude processing this is ok to fail
]]]
<HarryH> (I'm happy to discuss CR/PR is we have time. In particular, as soon as I get EARL from Jena I'll make an implementation report, but I need Jena's results and the precise number of tests to be approved)
<jjc> EARL from Jena this week ... hopefully
HarryH: as long as implementations pass noxinclude I'm happy
jjc: agrees.. but we need enough evidence
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#noxinclude
<HarryH> PROPOSAL: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#xinclude is a valid test for test-case document.
<HarryH> PROPOSAL: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#xinclude and ihttp://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests.html#noxinclude as a valid test for test-case document.
<DanC_lap> is the .html on purpose?
<HarryH> PROPOSAL: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests#xinclude and http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests#noxinclude as a valid test for test-case document.
<DanC_lap> 2nd
<HarryH> For previous resolutsions regards tests s/.html//
<DanC_lap> yes, s/.html#/#/g in resolutions of this meeting
<HarryH> APPROVED: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests#xinclude and http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests#noxinclude as a valid test for test-case document.
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests#grddlonrdf1
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests#grddlonrdf2
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests#grddlonrdf3
if a test passes the third, can it assume it has passed the others?
the maximal result is not isomorphic with the others
<DanC_lap> (tests don't assume anything; they're not thinking things)
<HarryH> \me asks DanC - can you take over chairing at noon? I still have these meetings at noon on Wed. till early May :(
jjc: issues with the test text
<DanC_lap> chairing... tricky... perhaps, if we start making the transition 10 minutes before you need to go.
so is "However, for the purpose of running these tests in order to determine compliance, a GRDDL-aware agent with a security policy which does not prevent it from applying transformations identified by each test will produce the GRDDL result associated with each normative test.
" authoritative
?
jjc: happy to approve number 3, and modify text of 1-2
<jjc> no delete 1-2
<jjc> annd modify text of 3
<HarryH> Note that I can't right CR transition till our test cases are fairly stable, so this test approval process is quite important.
<DanC_lap> you can start on the CR request at any time, harry. I find it's often good to work backwards from the goal
<DanC_lap> or perhaps somebody else can start on the CR request
<HarryH> ACTION: Chime and john-l to remove non-maximal tests from test-suite [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/11-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action05]
<HarryH> ACTION: Chime and john-l to remove non-maximal tests with ones with security relevancy. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/11-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action06]
<DanC_lap> action -5
jjc: issues with general conneg and what the 'maximal' result is
<HarryH> ACTION: HarryH to start working on CR/PR transition report for GRDDL Spec. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/11-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action07]
jjc: would like to see the merge as a seperate test for conneg
<jjc> ACTION jjc to produce/check merge results involving content negotiation
<jjc> ACTION: jjc to produce/check merge results involving content negotiation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/11-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action08]
<HarryH> I'm happy to drop this.
<HarryH> I'm happy to e-mail IanD and ask him to drop this.
<DanC_lap> WITHDRAWN. it falls to the someday pile. bonus points to anybody who picks this up and makes progress on it.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007AprJun/0010.html
[[[
I do notice http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/sq1ns
is not of the RDF mime type, should it really be handled
as RDF/XML?
]]]
<DanC_lap> DanC: this WG decided that the answer is yes, IIRC.
does this require the GRDDL-aware agent to attempt to parse all source documents as RDF/XML?
<HarryH> I thought there was a rule about this sort of sniffing.
<john-l> All application/xml source documents...
<HarryH> I.e. look for rdf:RDF.
the spec doesn't speak about media-type
just 'conforming RDF/XML'
<john-l> But if it's conforming RDF/XML, then it must also be XML, so anything that's not in an XML media type could not be a conforming RDF/XML document.
RDF/XML spec doesn't define conformance by anything other than the content not the media-type over the wire
<HarryH> In which case we're okay as regards RDF/XML.
<HarryH> So, one can serve RDF/XML as application/xml and still interpret it as RDF.
<HarryH> We might want to bring this up explicitly in informative text.
<HarryH> However, we should remember that we don't want to tie the spec to RDF/XML.
<DanC_lap> the relevant WG decision is under feb 7 under http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-mt-ns
<jjc> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-grammar-productions
scribe: discussion continues on what RDF/XML 'conformance' is ..
<DanC_lap> "If an information resource IR is represented by a conforming RDF/XML document[RDFX], then the RDF graph represented by that document is a GRDDL result of IR"
<HarryH> What if IR is in N3?
<HarryH> Sorry for asking the question :(
<HarryH> It's a real edge-case.
<DanC_lap> then the premise of that rule isn't satisfied and you gotta look elsewhere, Harry
<HarryH> Hmmm...
<DanC_lap> <foo/>
<HarryH> Is there a notion of RDF conformance that isn't tied to RDF/XML?
DanC_lap: is a conforming RDF/XML document
<DanC_lap> <foo xmlns="http://example/vocab" />
<HarryH> I'll just have to re-read the spec and look for this...anyways, feel free to ignore my comments as I'm not on the phone.
<jjc> If an information resource IR is represented by a conforming RDF/XML document[RDFX], then the RDF graph represented by that document is a GRDDL result of IR.
<john-l> What about what http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-grammar-productions about application/rdf+xml?
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests#sq1
<DanC_lap> DanC nominates jjc to review this sq1 test
<DanC_lap> JJC: sq1 is not problematic; it bears the rdf:RDF root element
<DanC_lap> ... or... hmm...
<DanC_lap> (the TAG concurred with the idea that the root element namespace URI works as an alternative to a MIME type decl)
<HarryH> +` root element namespace URI working as an alternatie to MIME type.
<HarryH> +1
<DanC_lap> ACTION: JohnL to draft refinement to "If an information resource IR is represented by a conforming RDF/XML document[RDFX], then the RDF graph represented by that document is a GRDDL result of IR" to be clear that "some other means", for our purposes, is a namespace on the root elt [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/11-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action09]
<DanC_lap> DanC collects advice on the xml pi appendix
<DanC_lap> ADJOURN
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: chimezie Found Scribe: Chime Default Present: john-l, HarryH, Chimezie_Ogbuji, FabienG, +0127368aaaa, jjc, briansuda, rreck, DanC Present: john-l HarryH Chimezie_Ogbuji FabienG +0127368aaaa jjc briansuda rreck DanC Regrets: IanD WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Got date from IRC log name: 11 Apr 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/04/11-grddl-wg-minutes.html People with action items: chime harryh is jjc john-l johnl WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]