<trackbot> Date: 20 June 2011

<bblfish> agenda

<bblfish> odd cut me off

<bblfish> today I have to leave a bit early today

<bblfish> perhaps we stop five minutes before the end of the hour

<MacTed> ... but you see no-one on IRC? strange.

<bblfish> member:Zakim, who's noisy?

<MacTed> and there's the answer...

Oh?

<bblfish> who wants to scribe?

I'll do it

there is enough people today to take up the proposed agenda

<bblfish> +1

<MacTed> +0 I wasn't there...

<bergi> +1

+1

<bblfish> RESOLVED: Minutes approved

<bblfish> agendum next

we had a lot of people around the table during the workshops

and of course, the WebID XG meeting

danbri was "late"

we had several good discussions during 3rd of June

<bblfish> danbri was not that late

<bblfish> it was great he came

memory is just like lined data -> distributed

everybody remembers bits

therefore people should fill in the wiki page with stuff that's missing

there's a missing discussion on the wiki, between bergi and bblfish

<bblfish> yes, I can tell if people have not done this because there are bits where people should fill in what they talked about

bblfish will add it at some point

<danbri> I arrived exactly when I intended to arrive!

correction, the discussion is there now

<bblfish> Bergi discussion is not missing

<danbri> (which was as soon as possible, given flight from AMS:)

<danbri> nice to be there, however briefly

yes, it was great

the picture danbri drew during the XG meeting should be discussed a little

there's other content which can go down another line

<bblfish> we are discussing that now

<bblfish> very important picture

there was consensus from everyone that there should be a core on which we should concentrate

http vs https, syntax as well

<bblfish> there was even talk of MUST requirements for the core

the people representing other protocols accepted that the WebID spec doesn't have to contain a predefined list of protocols

at this point

there MUST be a core

<bblfish> so my understanding was that there was consensus on there being a CORE small list of syntax, uri, and ontologies

bblfish does not really agree with using MUST in the spec, as tests can cover exceptions

<bblfish> Questuin: A. do are we all agree there is the core? B: that is is rdf/xml, rdfa + cert/rsa ontology + http/https (ftp..)

<bblfish> A:+ B:+ but not necessarily with a MUST in the spec - though we can add it later. More of a focus on these things first

<scor> +1

+1 A and B

<scor> +1 A and B

<bblfish> have I just dissapeared?

<scor> proposal: remain syntax agnostic, as long as there is a way to get RDF out of it

Question: is rdf/xml the best syntax to use on the long run?

<scor> so RDFa, RDF/XML, etc fit in this category

<scor> I disagree with RDF/XML

<bergi> +1 A and B no ftp

most of us have working rdf/xml representations

<scor> Deiu: I disagree, I work primarily with RDFa

scor, I'm scribing :-)

<scor> we've had very long and controversial discussions on the syntax in the group prior to joining the XG, and we could not settle on one syntax, that's why we have both at the moment

we have consensus that we don't want to use everything from the start

scor, I meant that I'm also scribing (not always stating my personal thoughts)

<bblfish> RESOLVED: consensus here and in Belrin on restricting ourselves for pragmatic purposes to a core, with HTTP and HTTPS, cert and rsa close to a MUST, and format still open

it's important that we "synchronize" our implementations, and this is where tests can help a lot

<bblfish> anything else anyone remembers us speaking of that morning?

by synchronize I mean deciding on common formats/syntax

that was it for the morning session

<bblfish> So in afternoon we started talking about tests

<scor> +1 for test driven dev

during the afternoon there was a debate between Mike and bblfish whether or not to use test driven development

Mike proposed the waterfall model, whereas bblfish proposes test driven dev

<bblfish> http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/

<scor> and feedback the implementations to improve the spec is important too

yes, exactly

bergi describes his junit webid tests

different test cases -> multiple URIs, keys, etc which are verified against endpoints

cache tests

<bblfish> webid mercurial repo: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID

<bblfish> I added this http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/file/55f18239ed1a/tests/earl

these are tests that clients should implement

a lot of feedback is needed at this point

we should concentrate on tests during the next few months

<bblfish> so we can prepare the final report

<bblfish> and so we can improve the specs

those of us currently developing WebID implementations should try to add tests

<bblfish> these machine readable tests are quite easy to generate

<bblfish> so I can point at the WebID implementation

I'll try to add something as well

<bblfish> So do we have consensus to make this a priority? Is the methodology ok?

personal note: tests are always welcome

+1 from me

<bblfish> +1 for me, but I implemented them already.

<bblfish> perhaps we should have a wiki page for tests

+1 for wiki page

<bblfish> ACTION: wiki page for tests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/20-webid-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - wiki

<bblfish> ACTION: bblfish, wiki page for tests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/20-webid-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - bblfish,

<bblfish> ACTION: bblfish wiki page for tests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/20-webid-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-30 - Wiki page for tests [on Henry Story - due 2011-06-27].

bblfish would like to add GRDDL support

but it's complicated right now

<bblfish> Request cert & rsa ontologies

bblfish proposes moving the two namespaces into one

<bblfish> Question is moving cert & rsa into one namespace

<scor> hugely in favor

<bblfish> +1

<scor> bblfish: could DSA be factored in the single vocab as well?

<bergi> +1

<bblfish> yes

<scor> what would be the name of the ontology? cert?

<bblfish> cert:

<scor> I can scribe

<bblfish> html rdfa of those ontologies like that foaf ontology

<bblfish> who would like to take on as a task

<bblfish> ACTION: scor to lead on rdfa-izing the cert/rsa ontologies [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/20-webid-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-31 - Lead on rdfa-izing the cert/rsa ontologies [on Stéphane Corlosquet - due 2011-06-27].

<bblfish> by the Scala in the w3c

<bblfish> trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
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: Deiu
Inferring Scribes: Deiu

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: bblfish, MacTed, +49.874.aabb, scribe, bergi, +1.781.866.aacc
Present: bblfish MacTed +49.874.aabb scribe bergi +1.781.866.aacc

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 20 Jun 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/20-webid-minutes.html
People with action items: bblfish scor wiki

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report