See also: IRC log
<HarryH> Scribe: Chime
<HarryH> PROPOSED: to approve GRDDL WG Weekly -- 31 Jan 2007 as a true record: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/att-0017/31-grddl-wg-minutes-edited.html
RESOLUTION: GRDDL WG Weekly minutes from 31 Jan, 2007 approved
<DanC> Ian's action is done to my satisfaction
Chime: I think it is close to out of scope and I'm concerned about outstanding effort (rec tracks and such)
HarryH: doesn't think it is out of scope
DanC: Asked a few people, some implementers think it is a good thing to do
<DanC> DanC: I have not yet found inspiration to implement it
HarryH: We have to consider last call timeline
<HarryH> Will people find inspiration to implement before Last Call is finished?
bwm: Had a brief word with Jeremy. No strong opinion on if it is a good thing. Recommends a short time to implement. Will back off if runs into trouble
bwm: How will we test this
bwm: Can we configure the test server to support test cases?
<HarryH> This test-case would require W3C Staff Contact (DanC) to change .htaccess
Test cases are needed if we go forward with this
<DanC> harry, don't put words in my mouth. anybody with cvs access can edit .htaccess. bwm has cvs access.
bwm: Dependencies on IETF
<HarryH> That's me who said that :)
<HarryH> Not DanC
danja: How does this relate to mnot's proposal?
somebody: Link header is registered, the profile is not
danja: In favor of accepting subject to a test case and IETF acceptance
DanC: any volunteers for testing and such?
bwm: Jeremy suggested creating a test case and configuring .htaccess
DanC: IanD has done everything we asked for this proposal
<scribe> ACTION: bwm (Jeremy) attempt a test-case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<DanC> (harry, I think this is the chair's call... do you detect a critical mass of support? if so, do a straw poll and/or put the question.)
<HarryH> 7 yeses, 1 no (Chime).
<HarryH> 1 absention
<DanC> PROPOSED: to add the GRDDL header to the GRDDL spec and test suite, per IanD's proposal contingent on IETF registration of Profile header
DanC: thinks this is a now or never situation
<HarryH> Chime is concerned about testing and dependencies on protocol-level.
<HarryH> PROPOSED: to add the GRDDL header to the GRDDL spec and test suite, per IanD's proposal [@@link] contingent on IETF registration of Profile header and feeedback from bwm/jeremy's test-case creation.
HarryH: add to proposal other dependencies (IETF,e tc)
<DanC> PROPOSED: to add the GRDDL header to the GRDDL spec, per IanD's proposal contingent on IETF registration of Profile header, and on succesful test experience
<HarryH> testing for conesnsus?
<HarryH> on that proposal - yes or no?
<benadida> abstain, but sounds good overall
<HarryH> Agreement to drop Ian's proposal if either IETF and test-case runs into difficulties.
<DanC> so RESOLVED
<HarryH> RESOLUTION: to add the GRDDL header to the GRDDL spec, per IanD's
<HarryH> RESOLVED: to add the GRDDL header to the GRDDL spec, per IanD's proposal [@@link] contingent on IETF registration of Profile header, and on succesful test experiencecontingent on IETF registration of Profile header, and on succesful test experience
<HarryH> CVS access?
benadida: No time to add / edit RDF/a test cases
bwm: Has CVS access
<HarryH> This issue is still unresolved.
<HarryH> Need to figure out what it would take to resolve it.
<HarryH> What would require to close this?
<HarryH> DanC: faithful-infoset has split off, test case needs to be done.
<HarryH> DanC: has had some inspiration.
<HarryH> Chime: mentions John Clarks' suggestion.
<HarryH> DanC: Make two tests, large test and small test.
<HarryH> DanC: slot for implemenation in test-suite includes flags for options like XInclude
<HarryH> HarryH: flags are controlled by harness commandline
<HarryH> DanC: Suggets two tests.
There are tests which have XInclude directives
<DanC> xinclude test is in http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/testlist3
<scribe> ... ongoing conversation about setting up for testing faithful-infoset issues XInclude ..
<DanC> ACTION: Chime to work on details of 2 allowed results of xinclude test [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action02]
<DanC> danc suggests 2 tests that share an input
<HarryH> how a GRDDL client interacts with a document whose root element is an XSLT literal result element
<HarryH> Jeremy suggests we duck.
<HarryH> Chime: bwm raised concerns with various other contents.
DanC: is fine with issue-mt-ns issues with regards to bwm
<HarryH> ACTION: To review #issue-mt-ns to see if comments still needed. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action03]
bwm: it might be a moot issue
scribe: reading through items in issue-mt-ns ..
<HarryH> whether RDF/XML statements labelled as application/xml constitute a "document whose meaning includes the RDF statement ... we decided "yes" you can sniff root-node.
<HarryH> what happens if data-view:transformation is given on an rdf:RDF root element
<HarryH> DanC: My feeling is spec says that there is another GRDDL result.
<HarryH> DanC: thinks we ignore result from that.
<HarryH> Chime: I think we'd treat it as XML GRDDL Source.
<HarryH> This sounds like a test-case.
DanC: green boxes in spec addresses issue
<DanC> PROPSED: that the current rules address issue-mt-ns
DanC: don't need a test case to decide
bwm: Rules don't call out rdf:RDF so we are fine
<DanC> "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"
DanC: implementors may have their own policy
HarryH: we may need more test cases
<HarryH> Chime: Should we mess two test-cases
<HarryH> Chime: is this dependent on mime-types?
<HarryH> Any takers?
DanC: leave testing in 'someday pile'
HarryH: don't want last call dependent on this case
<HarryH> ACTION: Harry to make 2 test-cases for "what happens if data-view:transformation is given on an rdf:RDF root elemen" serving two different media-types [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action05]
<benadida> (I have to run in 5 minutes, seminar.)
HarryH: 3 options..
HarryH: just RDF graph, just the extracted RDF, the merge of both
bwm: test 1: RDF graph itself, test2: just the extracted RDF
<HarryH> all 3 should be written.
DanC: don't multiplex multiple outputs from a *single* test case
<DanC> PROPSED: that the current rules (1.206) address issue-mt-ns
<HarryH> PROPOSED: The current text and rules of the editor's draft adequately addresses #issue-mt-ns
<HarryH> RESOLVED: The current text and rules of the editor's draft adequately addresses #issue-mt-ns
<HarryH> 2 abstains
<rreck> rreck abstains
<HarryH> BenA and Ron abstrains.
<benadida> gotta run, I'll read minutes for further discussions.
<HarryH> 'open world assumption' in testing...
<DanC> whee! we closed the last issue!
<DanC> ACTION:DanC to write rules about XSLT 1.0 processing context [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action06]
<DanC> ACTION:BenA to write a sample hGRDDL transformation [WITHDRAWN] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action07]
DanC: GRDDL agent protocol trace give enough guidance to implementors for issue-output-formats
<DanC> (enough... I hope)
bwm: does test server does con-neg?
bwm: change test manifest to allow a test to do content negotiation for a particular mime-type
bwm: replace URI with bnode (place holder for URI and mime-type)
DanC: why not add a field for accept header
<HarryH> Just keep me public-grddl-wg updated with progress,.
bwm: manifest (for tests) any mechanical linkage between the hosted HTML and ...
DanC: there is a makefile
<HarryH> makefile gets RDF out of HTML test file html
I thought base-param issue was closed
<DanC> baseURI.rdf revision 1.2 date: 2007/02/07 15:12:09
<DanC> revision 1.3 date: 2007/02/07 14:20:14 baseURI.html bwm: Fixed grddl:transformation attribute to point to correct transform
<HarryH> Anyone want to check this?
<HarryH> ACTION: DanC to double-check bwm's test-case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action08]
the text has been sent to the listserv
<HarryH> Jan 31st.
<DanC> GRDDL XML use case http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jan/0086.html
<HarryH> ACTION: HarryH to check that into primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action09]
<DanC> ACTION: Chime to propose some primer text for the hl7 case [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action10]
<HarryH> Chime: Concern about terms in rules.
<HarryH> Chime: In particular, rules that generating functions.
<HarryH> Chime: Thinks logi:uri/log:includes need more explanation as they are generating, i.e. logical functions
<HarryH> DanC: Not sure what Chime means, thinks they "refer to two terms in a graph"
<HarryH> Chime: Produces example where one part of relation is a string
<HarryH> DanC: String is in graph
<HarryH> DanC: Explanation in separate file?
<HarryH> Chime: Documentation is a proof.
<DanC> "# log http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#. @@explain log:uri in terms of [WEBARCH]"
<HarryH> Chime: wants human-readable text as well.
<HarryH> SPARQL Query patterns describe rule parts
<DanC> ACTION: IanD to sort out SPARQL Query [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action11]
I will pick up scribe cleanup duties when I return
<DanC> cool, chimezie
<DanC> HH: I made some progress on ACTION: Harry to add Jane schedule to RDFa
<HarryH> Slight issue with your XSLT.
<HarryH> See my e-mail and example, see if you can help me sort this:
<HarryH> Fabien, can you take my action over here?
<FabienG> I saw your email, I haven't check the details but I think my XSLT is missing that case.
<HarryH> Just fix that and we're in business for RDFa in Primer.
<HarryH> Primer a note or should we go through W3C Rec?
<HarryH> DanC - want document to teach you GRDDL easy to find.
<FabienG> I should have a day off Sunday, I will try to find the time to adress that if I have electricity.
<HarryH> ACTION: Danja to read primer and give us thumbs up or thumbs down. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action12]
<DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc29/primer.html Revision 1.37 2007/02/07 15:09:22
<FabienG> Yes, if I ever happen to be in the critical path, just short-cut me.
<HarryH> Fabien, can you make it to next meeting?
<HarryH> live over telecon?
<DanC> Fabien, any strong feelings on whether to take the use cases document to REC or to WG Note?
<DanC> I lean, mildly, toward WG Note for workload reasons.
<DanC> we can wait for you to think about it a bit
<HarryH> I'd like to see it Rec due to GRDDL Charter including use-cases.
<john-l> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/0038.html for some review of that document (new today).
<FabienG> I have no strong feeling: I don't realize what difference it makes for a use case document.
<DanC> John's use case review: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/0038.html
<briansuda> i can
<FabienG> I won't be able to make it to the next telecon, I will be in the plane on my way back to France.
<HarryH> ACTION: Danja and BrianSuda to read Use-Case Document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action13]
<DanC> ok, noted, Fabien
<HarryH> # ACTION: Fabien to post to sawsdl list relevant questions about RDF mapping and relationship to GRDDL [CLOSED]
<DanC> ACTION: Fabien to post to sawsdl list relevant questions about RDF mapping and relationship to GRDDL [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action14]
<HarryH> ACTION: DanC to add a sample implementation appendix to the GRDDL spec [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action15]
<HarryH> ACTION: John and Danja to read and give thumbs up and down for Spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/07-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action16]
<danja> ok, need to put log on fire