See also: IRC log
<HarryH> DanC to scribe for next week.
<HarryH> PROPOSED: to approve GRDDL WG Weekly -- 14 Feb 2007 as a true record
DanC_lap: wrote up a section on GRDDL-aware agents
DanC_lap: incorporated *most* feedback
DanC_lap: added JJ's security excerpt
DanC_lap: tweak to item 2. not changed yet
DanC_lap: WG seems supportive
DanC_lap: plans to update murray suggestion for step 2
Murray: security section isn't using consistent language with rest of the spec
Murray: we query members for comfort level of PROPOSAL ..
<HarryH> bwm doesn't address issue raised....still ambiguous.
bwm: could you restate the issue?
danja: should not verbage meant to be informative/normative?
Murray: minor editorial issues..
HarryH: get objections out on table
bwm: what is the specific criteria for GRDDL-aware agent label
DanC_lap: the text is clear..
bwm: WG members misread the intent of the label defn..
bwm: do the policies confuse the conformance definition...
Murrays: suggestion: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/0188.html
<DanC_lap> Murray's suggestion re step 2 is [[ Selectively apply any or all discovered transformations to obtain GRDDL results.
<DanC_lap> [N.B. Selection may be guided by the agent's capabilities, local security policies
<DanC_lap> and possibly user/client intervention. ]]
chimezie: what happens if a local policy prevents the application of any transform - is it a GRDDL-aware agent?
DanC_lap: not too concerned...
<DanC_lap> 1.228 has the tweak to step 2 applied.
I think if we describe the conformance criteria in the context of policies (as completely as we can) we will be consistent
<HarryH> s/A GRDDL-aware agent is a software module that computes GRDDL results of information resources./A GRDDL-aware agent is a software module that computes GRDDL results of information resources given a local policy..
<HarryH> A local policy SHOULD allow one to produce one or more GRDDL results on at least one source document.
DanC_lap: serves editorial right to make changes adhoc as long as they don't violate WG consensus
<HarryH> PROPOSE: to include "GRDDL-aware agent" as a conformance-label as described in sections 8 and 9 of http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec v: 1.228, plus a scrub for s/GRDDL processor/GRDDL-aware agent/ and s/GRDDL transform/GRDDL transformation/.
<HarryH> RESOLVED: to include "GRDDL-aware agent" as a conformance-label as described in sections 8 and 9 of http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec v: 1.228, plus a scrub for s/GRDDL processor/GRDDL-aware agent/ and s/GRDDL transform/GRDDL transformation/.
<DanC_lap> MM notes in section 8 "step 4 and 5" is tricky.
<HarryH> We will have the possibility this week of editorial changes, including sharpening definition of local policy and GRDDL-aware agent.
<DanC_lap> Danc: yes, I'll look into more clear numbering
<HarryH> ACTION: HarryH to bring #issue-http-header-links test with dajobe. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/21-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action01]
DanC_lap: added IanD's text, cited IETF draft, ...
DanC_lap: done as far as I know
bwm: high rate of change, no stable period before last call is taken up
DanC_lap: happy to not touch spec..
Murary: a week to review, incorporate comments, and vote
Murray: fine with monday as editorial cut off..
bwm: 2 kinds of comment: editorial and substantitive
bwm: we will need telecon time to discuss substantial comments. Add editorial comments to after last call
bwm: can't review by friday
Murray: current draft?
DanC_lap: prefers review of current draft
<HarryH> PROPOSAL: To freeze GRDDL spec draft at 1.228 for a week of reviews, clearly label reviews comments substantive or editorial and go for Last Call next telecon..
<HarryH> RESOLVED: To freeze GRDDL spec draft at 1.228 for a week of reviews, clearly label reviews comments substantive or editorial and go for Last Call next telecon.
HarryH: release as a WD?
HarryH: bug in RDFa example... no approval from danja
<DanC_lap> (danja, you did send comments? Harry and I seem to have missed them in preparing the agenda)
<HarryH> ACTION: Fabien to see what causes this bug in RDFa http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/0198.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/21-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action02]
<DanC_lap> (oh. duh. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Feb/0126.html 14 Feb from danja re primer)
<danja> hmm, can't see it now, but I broke that out in another thread
<FabienG> GRDDL Use Cases: Scenarios of extracting RDF data from XML documents, v 1.75 2007/02/21 16:32:07 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc43/scenario-gallery.htm
<HarryH> DanC: Workload reason for taking it to rec track.
DanC_lap: prefer not to take usecases to rec track
HarryH: if editor wants to go to rec track, we should go..
<danja> (re. primer the problem I saw was just down to non-sync between text & linked data, now I believe resolved)
Murray: desire to take usecase doc to rec track..
we should take both or neither to rec track.. (there are dependencies)..
DanC_lap: when usecases went rec track they had *requirements*...
we don't seem to be on the same page about what is going rec track
HarryH: resource issues with taking test doc to rec track
Murray: what if test doc and spec conflict?
<HarryH> The questions are:
<DanC_lap> (that the tests might say something spec doesn't say is a concern of mine; I'm not aware of any crystal-clear cases.)
<HarryH> Primer Rec Track?
<HarryH> Use-case Rec Track?
<HarryH> Test-Case Rec Track?
john-l: what is criteria for Rec..
<DanC_lap> (the main criterion for whether something is a REC is that the WG decides that it should be a REC. Different WGs have different styles. It's up to this WG to decide our approach to what to do with what documents.)
<briansuda> Primer: (preferably), Use-case: abstain, Test: abstain
I intend to clearly express the problem with not know what the criteria for REC track is via email. (beyond 'functional requirements')
Murray: we benefit more from bringing spec to REC status.. we are short on resources... pushing for 'name recognition'.. we should focus on the spec and test cases...
<DanC_lap> chime, there are no criteria more important than the preference of WG members. I hope you can give an opinion.
I don't think we have enough of a 'tutorial' , low learning curve approach to GRDDL w/out the other 2
<HarryH> We'll do a questionnaire and continue discussion on listserv.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127 of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) FAILED: s/mailicious/malicious/ FAILED: s/A GRDDL-aware agent is a software module that computes GRDDL results of information resources./A GRDDL-aware agent is a software module that computes GRDDL results of information resources given a local policy../ Succeeded: s/now/no/ Succeeded: s/voete/vote/ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: chimezie Found Scribe: Chimezie_ogbuji Default Present: +1.216.445.aaaa, john-l, Chimezie_Ogbuji, briansuda, Simone, +1.913.236.aacc, DanC, FabienG, HarryH, danja, bwm, Murray_Maloney Present: +1.216.445.aaaa john-l Chimezie_Ogbuji briansuda Simone +1.913.236.aacc DanC FabienG HarryH danja bwm Murray_Maloney Regrets: rreck WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 21 Feb 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/02/21-grddl-wg-minutes.html People with action items: fabien harryh WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]