See also: IRC log
<hhalpin> Murray's closure
<chimezie> I think it is a reasonable silent statement
jc: will xslt drive an xinclude
...: discusion of pipeline documents
hh: it would be good to get a
... does anyone have any concerns, can we get consensus on it?
bwm: does the spec talk about "faithful rendition"?
...: does faithful rendition entail "complete rendition"
<hhalpin> From GRDDL Spec "By
specifying a GRDDL transformation, the author of a document
states that the transformation will provide a faithful
rendition of the source document, or some portion of the source
document, that preserves its meaning in RDF."
...: so it long as it doesn't I needn't worry
<chimezie> I don't think it implies a 'complete' rendition
<rreck> why not explicitly state "that its not implied"
hh: quotes from the spec "some portion of the document"
bwm: that covers it
<hhalpin> maybe this "or some portion of the source document,"
xx: should we add words to say that it needn't be complete?
bwm: I think its covered in the para on faithful rendition
hh: Do we need test-suite finished?
hh:Seems implied by approving text
<hhalpin> PROPOSAL: To close #faithful-infoset issue by adding Murray's paragraph as given by http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jan/0085.html to the GRDDL Specification.
<briansuda> fine with me
<rreck> im good
hh: holds vote
<hhalpin> RESOLUTION: To close #faithful-infoset issue by adding Murray's paragraph as given by http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jan/0085.html to the GRDDL Specification.
<DanC_lap> please don't close faithful-infoset until chime's test work is done
<DanC_lap> oops; too late
bwm: sorry no progress been too busy
hh: progress by next week?
bwm: I'll do my best
<DanC_lap> who's got the action re faithful-infoset? the 0085 msg has language like "conformant processor" that can't be just pasted in
<DanC_lap> but otherwise, I guess it's close enough
<hhalpin> DanC, you have word-smithing discretion.
<hhalpin> DanC, do you wish to take an action to wordsmith and add that paragraph to the spec?
danc: will you take the action to
add murray's text with appropriate word smithing?
... the WG agreed that you should have freedom to wordsmith
<hhalpin> ACTION: Harry to send DanC a message asking for DanC to add in Murray's paragraph with appropriate wordsmithing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: hh Ask DanC to add Murray's text with appropriate wordsmithing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action02]
hh: how is the healthcare test example
chime: I sent a message but not
... Ian is planning to get to it this Friday
... I believe
hh: Ian has sent a message about http headers
<hhalpin> Let's look at Ian's latest message:
<chimezie> Isn't the notion of interpeting HTTP headaer content out of scope of GRDDL?
<chimezie> even if the starting point is just bytes?
hh: DanC thought it might be
<rreck> if its in scope, i prefer option #2
Unknown: a client could just decide to
... a best practice
... general support for option 2
... would integrate better with software
hh: do we want to put an action on him to write text for the spec or the primer
chime: I think its very close to out of scope
<scribe> ACTION: hh find out if its in scope [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action03]
<briansuda> brian agrees with chime, this only works via HTTP. When using over file:// then GRDDL is lost
bwm: does option 2 create a dependency
chime: given the fact we to go for last call in two weeks, that strengthens my feeling its out fo scope.
hh: Dan and Ian were pro
... lets postpone this for next meeting
<hhalpin> ACTION: HarryH to see if this is out-of-scope [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action04]
hh: process question - should we name a particular version
bwm: we postponed issues on RDFCore
hh: I'd rather not have postponed issues
chime: the WG can't do everything
hh: maybe the ietf involvement
requires us to rule it out of scope
... can we get two people to review all three specs
... rreck you were going to read them
rr: yes I have been
... I've read two
hh: the primer and spec have had some pretty large changes
<hhalpin> ACTION: Rreck to send his comments on the primer and spec to the public-grddl-wg. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action05]
bwm: what documents are going rec track
hh: all three
... we might want a co-editor to help DanC
... we asked before, but got no response
... if anyone is interested please raise your hand
chime: there is a big change with the introduction of rules
hh: did you find the rules helpful
... I just wondered if there was discussion of their introduction
hh: n3 rules don't have a formal
... which makes it a bit dodgy to make them normative
... I don't ahve a personal objection to them
... but others might object
chime: I didn't say they were
useful, I found them interesting
... I am not clear if they are informative or normative
hh: please bring this up on the
... we asked Dan to state things as clearly and formally as possible and this is what he did
<hhalpin> ACTION:Chime to ask question about rules [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action06]
hh: I'm ready to close the
... anything else
<hhalpin> meeting adjourned