- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:16:21 -0500
- To: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Hypertext: http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes
Plain text...
GRDDL Weekly
20 Sep 2006
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-irc
Attendees
Present
Rachel_Yager, FabienGandon, Chimezie_Ogbuji, Ben_Adida, iand,
DanC, harryh, Murray_Maloney
Regrets
danja
Chair
harryh
Scribe
DanC
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Convene GRDDL WG meeting of 2006-09-20T13:00-0400
2. [5]publication schedule
3. [6]Review of Use Cases document
4. [7]Discussion of Primer Document
5. [8]GRDDL Spec: issue-base-param
6. [9][#issue-output-formats] which output formats should
GRDDL support?
7. [10]post-meeting review of actions
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Convene GRDDL WG meeting of 2006-09-20T13:00-0400
<scribe> Scribe: DanC
Fabien is excused after xx:20
-> [12]minutes 13 Sep
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Sep/att-0116/13-grddl-wg-minutes.html__charset_us-ascii
RESOLUTION: to approve minutes 13 Sep
HH: I may need to leave before end of call
PROPOSED: to meet again 27 Sep, per regular schedule
RESOLUTION: to meet again 27 Sep, per regular schedule, FabienGandon
to scribe.
publication schedule
HH: w3c communications team and semweb CG is inclined to do all 3
drafts at once, 24 Oct...
DC: I'm inclined to publish the use cases doc this month, to keep to
the 3 month rule
CHI: yeah, let's not sit on docs that are ready to go
HH: ok, I'll run that by the CG: 24 Oct press release date, and
publish docs as they're ready
Review of Use Cases document, reviewing actions from last meeting
HH: ready to go?
FG: modulo the 2 concerns from last week...
... but I'm OK to publish with those unresolved.
<harryh> Danny can you give the use-case document a final read? And
then give us a response on whether it publishable or not?
<DanC> or have you already read it closely?
<danja> will do - tonight
<danja> (straight after telecon)
FG: on XML Schema, I replied to Dan; I just need one high-level
paragraph
CHI: I sent a suggestion.
HH: ok, so it looks like we'll be ready to decide next week
<scribe> ACTION: Murray to send out his take on take on standardized
vocabulary [CONTINUES] [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: DanC: with BenA advise FG on CHI's XML Schema
paragraph suggestion [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action02]
chime's suggestion
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Sep/0138
.html
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Sep/0138.html
<scribe> ACTION: BenA to flesh out HTML RDF/A output of GRDDL use
cases [DONE] [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> see also issue outputformats
<scribe> ACTION: Ryager to read draft thoroughly [CONTINUES]
[recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: BenA to draft XML Schema use-case in context of
Creative Commons and OAI. [DONE] [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action06]
Discussion of Primer Document
ID: I added SPARQL to the primer
ID: I noted DanC's dtend fencepost bug [and fixed it?]
<scribe> ACTION: iand to remove references to RDFa from primer
[DONE] [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action07]
<scribe> ACTION: iand, Fabien to change wording of POX to
'single-purpose XML vocabulary' or something similar [DONE]
[recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action08]
BenA: what exactly was removed?
ID: a surpious ref
<scribe> ACTION: BenA will proof-read primer document [CONTINUES]
[recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action09]
<scribe> ACTION: chime will review primer document, advise on
publishing as WD [CONTINUES] [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action10]
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to get IanD cvs write access for primer work
in GRDDL WG [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action11]
DC: Danny was going to test the primer files... news?
<scribe> ACTION: DannyA to test the primer files [CONTINUES]
[recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action12]
<danja> not done yet, got a bit too involved in the testing code...
DC: hmm... I presented GRDDL last week... sorta...
-> [25]Talking with U.T. Austin students about the Microformats,
Drug Discovery, the Tabulator, and the Semantic Web
[25] http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/161
CHI: the parts of the primer I worked with were OK when I looked
GRDDL Spec: issue-base-param
<scribe> ACTION:DanC to enumerate options for base issue, pick one,
and propose it in the form of a test case. See his suggestion to
pass it as a parameter and discussion with Chime over extension
functions. [CONTINUES] [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action13]
[#issue-output-formats] which output formats should GRDDL support?
-> [27]Four options for discussion
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Sep/0129.html
HH: we've heard from DanC and Ben; I sent some options...
<danja> I'd go for a variant of 2), SHOULD for RDF/XML, MAY for
others (not necessarily W3C-recommended)
DC: I don't have much rationale for requiring RDF/XML other than I
have experience and I know how it works.
MM: GRDDL is easy to understand as "N in, 1 out"...
... I can see it setting a precedent for similar things.
[CHI and DC discussed abstract syntax expressed as API calls rather
than any concrete syntax too...]
MM: looking at the use cases and primer, they remind me of
"application notes" about technologies many years ago...
... I'm concerned that the use cases show doing too much with GRDDL.
<Zakim> benadida, you wanted to comment on "other implementations"
BenA: if transformations can only output RDF/XML, they can't express
the presentation XHTML stuff while they're at it.
<Zakim> chimezie, you wanted to "not really 1 out"
CHI: I prefer thinking of the output as RDF abstract syntax
MM: did I hear that RDF/XML is less expressive than other syntaxes?
CHI: yes
MM: and is there a "maximally expressive" syntax?
<Zakim> iand, you wanted to "too much variability hurts interop"
CHI: well, sort of; SPARQL picked a middle ground rather than, e.g.
N3
<danja> without at least one normative concrete syntax, where's the
interop?
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note that the scope of GRDDL is getting
data (think: spreadsheet, database) out of documents.
DC: I lean the same way Ian does; the benefit of allowing other than
RDF/XML isn't worth it.
<chimezie> seems like there is a 3 level stratification of GRDDL
output 1) a specific RDF concrete syntax 2) any concretized abstract
syntax (wouldn't include API calls) 3) any concretized abstract
syntax in addition to API calls
<DanC> I see no merit in (2)
<chimezie> I can't even imagine an API call scenario/usecase in the
framework we have so far for GRDDL
<iand> problem is that there's no way to predict what syntax is
going to be output by any given transformation
<benadida> I think I overstated the need for an API approach in the
GRDDL *spec*
HH polls for RDF/XML only vs RDF/XML preferred
HH: sounds about even
<iand> abstract syntax -
[28]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-Gra
ph-syntax
[28] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-Graph-syntax
DanC: the even poll makes re-inforces my preference to keep this
open until we can get Brian McBride's input.
<iand> this is relevant -
[29]http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Serialising
[29] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Serialising
MM: is there a spec for going from RDF abstract syntax to RDF/XML?
DC: [confuses the issue with his ansewr; iand's pointer is the right
answer]
<chimezie> The XML realm is syntactic (uniformity is important), the
RDF realm is semantic/abstract (syntactic uniformity is irrelevant)
DC clarifies that RDFa is not the RDF abstract syntax, but rather
another concrete syntax
HH: so if we mandated RDF/XML only, and other syntaxes mature, we'd
have to rev GRDDL, right?
MM: or make a new thing, maybe "GARDEN". but there's real value in
knowing the target of GRDDL.
<chimezie> Somewhat related: The rdf scutters I write (when met with
a URL w/out an appropriate mime-type) attempt an RDF/XML parse
first, TriX second, N3 third in that order
(lots of discussion, not carefully scribed.)
<chimezie> If there is truely a very minimal set of abstract RDF
that can't be expressed in RDF/XML im inclined to rethink my stance
on abstract syntax
<iand>
[30]http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Serialising
gives you the exceptions
[30] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Serialising
DC: one concrete use case where a transformation designer prefers
other than RDF/XML is Atom/Owl. Henry story has written XQuery that
produces turtle. I have tried to get him to produce RDF/XML, but I
haven't managed.
MM: one possibility is that GRDDL specifies RDF/XML only, but a WG
note specifies the less constrained version, that targets RDF
abstract syntax
ADJOURN.
post-meeting review of actions
<scribe> ACTION:Harry to draft some elaboration on how media types
work with GRDDL ("adding a sentence" as in this message).
[CONTINUES] [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action14]
harryh has made progress, but we haven't discussed the outcome
<scribe> ACTION: Murray to suggest what GRDDL spec issues are
covered by XML Processing, suggestion on how to fix it. [CONTINUES]
[recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action15]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: DanC to get IanD cvs write access for primer work in
GRDDL WG [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action11]
[NEW] ACTION: DanC: with BenA advise FG on CHI's XML Schema
paragraph suggestion [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action02]
[PENDING] ACTION: BenA will proof-read primer document [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action09]
[PENDING] ACTION: chime will review primer document, advise on
publishing as WD [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action10]
[PENDING] ACTION: DanC to enumerate options for base issue, pick
one, and propose it in the form of a test case. See his suggestion
to pass it as a parameter and discussion with Chime over extension
functions. [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action13]
[PENDING] ACTION: DannyA to test the primer files [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action12]
[PENDING] ACTION: Harry to draft some elaboration on how media types
work with GRDDL ("adding a sentence" as in this message). [recorded
in [39]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action14]
[PENDING] ACTION: Murray to send out his take on take on
standardized vocabulary [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action01]
[PENDING] ACTION: Murray to suggest what GRDDL spec issues are
covered by XML Processing, suggestion on how to fix it. [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action15]
[PENDING] ACTION: Ryager to read draft thoroughly [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action05]
[DONE] ACTION: BenA to draft XML Schema use-case in context of
Creative Commons and OAI. [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action06]
[DONE] ACTION: BenA to flesh out HTML RDF/A output of GRDDL use
cases [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action04]
[DONE] ACTION: iand to remove references to RDFa from primer
[recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action07]
[DONE] ACTION: iand, Fabien to change wording of POX to
'single-purpose XML vocabulary' or something similar [recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2006/09/20-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action08]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [47]scribe.perl version 1.127
([48]CVS log)
$Date: 2006/09/20 22:13:11 $
[47] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[48] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 22:16:53 UTC