See also: IRC log
<scribe> chair: HarryH
<scribe> scribe: Danja
Vipul gives David his proxy.
<HarryH> comments on the agenda?
<HarryH> PROPOSED: to approve GRDDL WG -- 20th Jun 2007 as a true record
RESOLUTION: to approve GRDDL WG -- 20th Jun 2007 as a true record
<HarryH> PROPOSED: to meet again Wed, 4th July 11:00-0400. scribe volunteer?
<rreck> i dont think i can come on the 4th for sure
<DanC> I'm at risk for 4 July; I'd rather we took a week off
<FabienG> regrets for me too
<HarryH> ScribeNick: danja
HarryH: meeting on 4th July?
<HarryH> Meeting on 11th of July?
<HarryH> Do we have a scribe?
RESOLUTION: meet again 11 July; John-l is scribe
RESOLUTION: to cancel meeting on 4th of July.
<rreck> i will be at CCCT on July 11
<scribe> ACTION: Danja to contact Kingsley and try to get GRDDL EARL results [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action01]
HarryH: opinion on test case doc?
chime: wanting input on what to merge
DanC: anything not done now, happy to leave forever
<rreck> there are alot of test cases
chime: move over/renaming links?
HarryH: part of charter get test cases for std lib
chime: leave as-is is conservative thing to do
<chimezie> PROPOSAL: approve tests: #inline-rdf1, #inline-rdf2,#inline-rdf3,#inline-rdf4,#inline-rdf5,#inline-rdf6,#inline-rdf8,#inline-rdf9,#inline-rdf10
<chimezie> with base URI of : http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests
<DanC> based on http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/test_results1.16 , which shows 2 passing implementations for inline-rdf1-10, I 2nd the proposal to approve them.
RESOLUTION: to approve tests: #inline-rdf1, #inline-rdf2,#inline-rdf3,#inline-rdf4,#inline-rdf5,#inline-rdf6,#inline-rdf8,#inline-rdf9,#inline-rdf10 with base URI of : http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests
<rreck> the embedded ones do not have two passing instances
<HarryH> ACTION: chimezie to update test manifest to include statements about features exercised by each test [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action02]
chime: yes, feature index in RDF is recent
<chimezie> The link which disposes of my ACTION to add RDF statements about the features excercised: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jun/0135.html
HarryH: to get to PR need two passes...
<rreck> the embedded ones do not have two passing instances
John: problem with test harness on embedded-rdf4, not raptor's fault
<john-l> ACTION: john-l to add various explanations to the test results page. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action03]
DanC: change todos into "would be
nice", add john-l as sig
... wants to sign off both docs today
Harry: anything in the test editor's draft outstanding before PR?
Chime: no; nothing outstanding in v 1.53 2007/06/26 16:55:13
HarryH: spent a whole telecon on this already, everybody happy to vote?
dbooth: has prepared something to present
<dbooth> Slides: http://dbooth.org/2007/grddl/ambiguity2.ppt
DanC: not ok to spend time this way
HarryH: responsibility to address comment
dbooth: ok going straight to straw proposals
<HarryH> Straw Poll for 1c: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jun/0331.html
<HarryH> danja: concur.
<HarryH> dbooth: yes.
<chimezie> How the proposals fall out along CCF position: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jun/0375.html
clarification question: are these mutually exclusive proposals?
HarryH: straw poll, prior to formal poll
<DanC> no; changing the domain of transformation is a substantive change; would require changes and re-opening issues, and the odds we'd improve the spec substantially doesn't look worth the time
<bwm> I'd like to make it clear that the HP position is to abstain on this vote
<DanC> this isn't a vote
<HarryH> David votes "yes".
dbooth: need to find which proposal has most agreement
<HarryH> Proposal 2c?
dbooth: as 1 with non-validating parsing
<DanC> no; 2c likewise changes the domain of transformation, which (as jjc's tests show) is substantive change; would require tests and re-opening issues, and the odds we'd improve the spec substantially doesn't look worth the time
<HarryH> Danny: concur
<HarryH> David: yes
dbooth: 2c more fully addresses ambiguity issue
<HarryH> HarryH: abstrain
<HarryH> John-l: yes
<HarryH> Chime: abstrains.
HarryH: more or less same, one less yes
<HarryH> Straw poll on 3c: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jun/0333.html
<DanC> re 3c, no on grounds of order; we'd need to re-open faithful infoset first.
<HarryH> Danny: concurs.
<HarryH> dbooth: yes.
<HarryH> john-l: yes
<HarryH> Chime: yes
<HarryH> vipul: yes.
HarryH: substantially more yes
<dbooth> W3C Process document on Managing Dissent:
<dbooth> Groups SHOULD favor proposals that create the weakest objections. This is preferred over proposals that are supported by a large majority but that cause strong objections from a few people.
DanC: doesn't consider it in order to discuss
HarryH: DanC, is strong objection?
DanC: I'll live
... will take role as editor, will follow WGs instruction
dbooth: may have hybrid
... from chime
chime: depends on process
HarryH: can do one more straw
... can't really discuss because it doesn't have specific changes to text
(silence while everyone reads)
<chimezie> basically whether or not the transform is given teh document (and not the XPath model) and whether the transformation determiniation happens on a minimal XPath is dependent on 1) if the transformation is XProc and 2) if an XML Processing Model is applied
<DanC> (it's clear to me that 0375 overlaps our decision on faithful infoset and we shouldn't discuss it unless we're re-considering the decision)
<chimezie> XProc WG is chartered to produce 2)
HarryH: simple informative text addition enough?
<HarryH> I consider this a clarification of faithful infoset.
<HarryH> In particular, because of this sentece in faithful infoset:
chime: minimal processing if XProc...difficult to explain
<HarryH> Therefore, it is suggested that
<HarryH> GRDDL transformations be written so that they perform all expected
<HarryH> pre-processing, including processing of related DTDs, Schemas and
<DanC> (we postponed this issue. we agreed that yes, there are lots of possible designs in this space, but no, we're not choosing any of them. I find it rediculous to say that discussion of these designs is not reconsideration of that decision.)
<HarryH> danja: concur
<HarryH> dbooth: favor
<HarryH> harryH: abstrain.
<HarryH> john-l yes
<DanC> no. out of order.
HarryH: appears same as 3c
<HarryH> Strong objection.
DanC: doesn't understand impact on spec, strong object
<HarryH> Now for a formal vote on 3c?
dbooth: views as acceptable resolution under circumstances
clarification question... does a WG decision here imply instructions to editors? [yes]
Chime: what should be the forward reference? XProc (not yet written) or xmlFunctions-34
DanC: plan A: XProc group comes up with a working model, TAG says ok
dbooth: I don't see that as a critical issue either way
<DanC> (I think it merits inclusion in the status section, independent of whether it goes in the body of the tests document.)
<DanC> (and I'm the team contact, so I have final say on the status section. :-P ;-)
dbooth: putting it in the Status section alone is not clear enough
HarryH: putting the question on 3c...
<HarryH> john-l: yes.
<HarryH> David: abstain.
<HarryH> Vipul: yes.
<HarryH> DanC: abstain.
<HarryH> "Yes": 3
<HarryH> "Concur": 3
<HarryH> Abstains: "2"
<HarryH> Concurs-> "yes"
<HarryH> "yes" = 6
<DanC> 6 is a critical mass. <- my advice to the chair
<HarryH> RESOLVED: to address dbooth-3 ambiguity comment a la edits to Spec and Test-Cases as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jun/0333.html
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to incorporate 0054 comments into namespace doc [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action04]
DanC: I finished that just before the meeting. That's it for spec edits, AFAIK.
HarryH: DanC brought up somewhat tangentially; not a formal issue
DanC: doesn't feel strongly, PR request worded well
HarryH: would prefer not to reopen group every time a new HTML spec comes out
<HarryH> Chime: If GRDDL is subject to XHTML, it will never be stable.
DanC: authority of profile comes
... if we seriously want to do this, need to have consensus of the HTML group
... claiming "@profile is well-deployed" is probably not a good way to start; there's heaps of evidence to the contrary
<FabienG> I have a naive question: if the profile attribute disappears can we still use the XML attribute mechanism in XHTML2 and HTML5?
HTML5, not as-is, isn't XML
chime: reads aloud "dependencies with other groups"
DanC: adequately up to date with dependencies
HarryH: GRDDL not chartered to
work with HTML5
... GRDDL can remain XHTML-only if necessary
(sorry, lost track of who's speaking)
DanC: make case for victory on GRDDL, support @profile outside this group
HarryH: send strong mail to HTML WG from this WG in support of keeping profile
DanC: strong case is test cases + implementation support more than just spec status
danja: DanC, better WG mail or individualos
DanC: what matters is the
... worst case, follow your nose is gone by consensus
... I have convinced myself of the value of URI-based extensibility, but I struggle to convince others.
HarryH: HTML5 has to get through W3C process
<DanC> ACTION: DanC to salt http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jun/0274.html to taste and send to HTML WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action05]
<dbooth> I also think it's a good idea
<HarryH> danja: yes
<HarryH> I'll take send as authorization to send it out plus one e-mail.
<chimezie> "famous last words"
HarryH, check latter bits of http://dannyayers.com/2007/06/25/grddl-progress
<DanC> (in particular, I think we should phrase the subject of these liaison messages in terms of the recipient group, i.e. "please keep @profile", not "review of GRDDL")
HarryH: status of comments
<HarryH> latest in Eisenberg/XQuery thread
HarryH: ready for votes
<DanC> proposal should cite http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/prrequest.html too
<DanC> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec 1.273 + dbooth3 edit + status/pubrules
<DanC> test cases Revision 1.53 2007/06/26 16:55:13 cogbuji
<DanC> test cases Revision 1.53 2007/06/26 16:55:13 cogbuji + dbooth3 edit
<chimezie> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests 1.53 + approvals of inline-rdf* + RESOLUTION on proposal 3c
<DanC> oh yeah... inlinerdf.
<HarryH> PROPOSAL: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec 1.273 + dbooth3 edit + status/pubrules and http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests 1.53 + approvals of inline-rdf* + RESOLUTION on proposal 3c (dbooth3) to PR.
<DanC> (david, I'm interested in another set of eyeballs on http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/prrequest.html ; are you interested?)
<dbooth> DanC, okay
<HarryH> PROPOSAL: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec 1.273 + dbooth3 edit + status/pubrules and http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests 1.53 + approvals of inline-rdf* + RESOLUTION on proposal 3c (dbooth3) to PR and PR Request + editorial changes and edits authorized by WG member.
<DanC> something like http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/prrequest.html plus edits to @@s as agreed by HarryH and DavidB
<DanC> ok, "by WG member" is close enough
<HarryH> chime: yes
<HarryH> hp: yes
<HarryH> Harry: yes
<HarryH> w3c: yes
<HarryH> Simone: yes
<Simone> Simone : Yes
<rreck> i voted yes
RESOLUTION: to request Proposed Recommendation based on http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec 1.273 + dbooth3 edit + status/pubrules and http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests 1.53 + approvals of inline-rdf* + RESOLUTION on proposal 3c (dbooth3) PR Request + editorial changes and edits authorized by WG member.
<HarryH> For members of WG not present, they can express their support by e-mail to the firstname.lastname@example.org.
HarryH: Dublin Core profile?
<HarryH> ACTION: IanD and Danja to e-mail maintainer of Dublin Core Metadata Profile to upgrade to GRDDL. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action06]
(I now work with iand, so it's == )
<DanC> (oops; we perhaps should have changed your affiliation, danja.)
<HarryH> Are there any GRDDL implementations that we can cite as support deployment besides OpenLink and TopBraid?
<danja_> DanC, only recent - probably a bit late in the day
<HarryH> I'll add XTech in.
<rreck> you mean like ISO vocabularies?
<rreck> ok i have ISO 3166
<HarryH> XML based vocabularies or XHTML profiles.
<HarryH> Could you e-mail that to the list rreck?
<rreck> i have to finalized it
<rreck> but yes
<HarryH> Just e-mail it to us that you're working on it.
<FabienG> Do you include RDFa profile: http://ns.inria.fr/grddl/rdfa/ ?
<dbooth> PR request needs to mention xmlFunctions-34
<rreck> i have conversions of 3166-2 genericode to RDF
HarryH: any other additons to PR request?
DanC: there was a Jazoom talk lately. Maybe our WWW2007 tutorial?
<DanC> that jazoon link is among http://del.icio.us/connolly/grddl
<dbooth> In PR request: s/been been/been/
<chimezie> ST '07 COP GRDDL session: http://www.semantic-conference.com/2007/sessions/d1.html
<scribe> ACTION: danja to review primer [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action07]
dbooth: plus addition of XML NS doc example
DanC: that sort of edit involves reconsidering our decision last week to publish
<DanC> (it means we have to make a decision or risk going to the someday pile)
HarryH: to fulfil charter have to have everything going out as once
<john-l> What's wrong with publishing updates to WG Notes?
dbooth: would need time
HarryH: DanC, is update to Note doable?
DanC: process allows it but team
contact resources are dwindling
... perhaps Ivan could fill in for me or something
[discussion on finding a staff contact later]
<dbooth> If DanC is unable to perform his duties as W3C staff contact, we need to escalate to W3C management.
<HarryH> PROPOSAL: To publish http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc29/primer.html + correct danja's + chime's problems today + removing iframes.
<HarryH> DanC: abstain.
<HarryH> HarryH: abstains.
<DanC> I abstain and I'm not taking any publication related actions based on that proposal; too much risk.
<rreck> thanks, bubye
<HarryH> Meeting extended; people who don't want to work on primer are excused
<john-l> Are we just going to leave the iframes, then?
<john-l> The spreadsheets example is based on work by Mark Nottingham in "Adding
<john-l> Semantics to Excel with Microformats and GRDDL". The version of the
<john-l> transformation script used in that example has a few significant changes
<john-l> from Mark's original.
chimezie, is this right: [[[
Also possible typo down there - cpr:medical-problem is mentioned in
the text, can't see it in the RDF, maybe cpr:medical-sign is intended?
<HarryH> The syntax of a "This Version" URI MUST be <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-shortname-2007MMDD/>.
<HarryH> Error The status found in the URI (http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-grddl-primer-20061002/) doesn't match the specified short status (NOTE), or the "this version" link is not well formatted (a la http://www.w3.org/TR/YYYY/status-shortname-YYYYMMDD)
<HarryH> Error. Although the boilerplate text is correct, there is an inconsistency with respect to IPP for the group identified by http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/: Error. The group is in IPP. There is an inconsistency between the checker configuration (not W3C Patent Policy) and what IPP believes (W3C Patent Policy).
<briansuda> i'm still around in IRC if you need me for anything
<DanC> the changelog is a raw CVS log since 27 Sep; anybody want to do something friendlier?
<DanC> HarryH, recall we used that hotel example for our WWW2007 tutorial; we came up with a nice diagram: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/tut7/hotel-answer.png
<DanC> I wonder if it's worth adding
<DanC> (slide28 is a hoot; did we ack the source of that image?)
<dbooth> If that image is correct, I'd favor adding it.
<DanC> one list is http://esw.w3.org/topic/DawgShows
<DanC> dbooth, it was correct as of May; can you take a quick look?
<DanC> and http://esw.w3.org/topic/SparqlEndpoints
<DanC> +1 after "With this combined "mashed-up" data " para
<DanC> here's what I use when I need a DTD: $ echo "foo" | tidy -asxml
<DanC> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
<HarryH> All normative representations MUST validate as either HTML 4.x or as some version of XHTML that is a W3C Recommendation.
<HarryH> Error The W3C Markup Validation Service was used for the validation of this document.
<HarryH> At least one normative representation MUST validate as HTML 4.x or XHTML 1.0 (for backwards compatibility).
<HarryH> OK (found XHTML 1.0 Frameset) The W3C Markup Validation Service was used for the validation of this document.
<DanC> john, you might appreciate ,mirrorstatus
<john-l> I think that requires credentials that I don't have.
<DanC> <IanJ> when I ,pubrules that URI I don't get that error, DanC
<dbooth> DanC: I hereby okay the status section.
<DanC> I move to adjourn.
<DanC> pls send pub request to webreq, copy me and john-l (and w3c-archive)
<DanC> PROPOSED: to publish http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc29/primer.html Revision 1.125 2007/06/27 17:30:29 + changes required by W3C publication process by john or harry or danc
<dbooth> I second
RESOLUTION: to publish http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc29/primer.html Revision 1.125 2007/06/27 17:30:29 + changes required by W3C publication process by john or harry or danc