See also: IRC log
PROPOSED: to approve GRDDL WG Weekly -- 7 March 2007 as a true record
RESOLUTION: GRDDL WG Weekly -- 7 March 2007 as a true record
PROPOSED: to meet again Wed, 21 March 11:00-0500. scribe volunteer?
Scribe for next meeting: Fabien
<scribe> ACTION: HarryH contact AC Reps directly about form if not filled out by next Tuesday. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action01]
Why aren't there more comments on the spec?
<chimezie> It covers alot of ground
<chimezie> a *bit* intimidating..
<jjc> LC comments come on the last day!
<rreck> i concur
I assume we're getting lots of implementers..
Which is the audience of the spec.
And they have been following since working draft.
However, it would be good to do better outreach to the microformat community?
<chimezie> is everyone on irc on the phone?
<chimezie> does the primer cover some of that advocacy?
<jjc> As long as we are happy that there are implementers, and that they are reading the spec
<jjc> then everything is OK for this one
<jjc> Primer audience may be wider
<jjc> Last Call comments are made by unhappy people
OK, then maybe save big push on GRDDL for deployment till we get primer a bit more well sorted...
<jjc> which WG have we asked to review?
<chimezie> im not sure if we've asked any for review specifically
Quite a few informally, almost none formally.
<chimezie> but we have liason with SADDLE & XProc
Actually, we haven't asked XSLT
We asked XProc and Xquery
<chimezie> jjc: what was decition about Primer going to rec track
<chimezie> HarryH: there seemed to be more votes to take it rec track, but editor has been unavailable
<chimezie> jjc: release a LC WD to quickly cycle up to LC if thats what we have in mind for the Primer
good plan of action to myself
<chimezie> jjc: wouldn't expect substantial LC comments for the primer
we've had only syntactic comments before
<chimezie> HarryH: usecase editor is more available but response to questionaire suggests it *shouldn't* be taken to REC
<chimezie> FabienG: posted a new version of the usecase document
<scribe> New version
<chimezie> FabienG: doesn't believe it is in critical path
<chimezie> FabienG: probably will play a role again for outreach
<chimezie> jjc: one more round of WG review for a WG Note
<scribe> ACTION: Jeremy to review Use-case document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action02]
Chime, you've posted a document?
<chimezie> jjc: critical to publish WD
<chimezie> jjc: need to publish 2 copies to go to PR
<chimezie> jjc: first WD is a placeholder
<chimezie> jjc: bad manners to put out a single cycle WD -> PR
How about give one more week to clean it up and then release as Working Draft?
And since I believe it's in critical path perhaps get another co-editor.
<chimezie> jjc: suggests publishing WD with an ACTION on editor to address outstanding commentary
<chimezie> HarryH: RDF processors support turtle..
<chimezie> jjc: we can put it in informative text..
<chimezie> jjc: the main problem is where we make changes to normative sections of the specification..
<chimezie> will going forward with leaving the test document as is close the door on addressing #output-format LC commentary?
<scribe> ACTION: Chime to address comments in test case doc and then release as WD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action03]
<chimezie> jjc: clean up broken text, links, etc..
Chime - did we get EARL output?
<chimezie> could the current test harness be used to get result Jena GRDDL reader impl?
Do we have any volunteers to fix the tests?
<chimezie> jjc: need someone to fix broken tests..
<chimezie> john-l's email shows how it is broken..
<scribe> ACTION: jeremy to fix broken tests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action04]
<chimezie> jjc: clarify which tests were approved
<chimezie> jjc: EARL output reports will steamline the process
This sounds like we can skip the rest of the test-related issues on the agenda.
<chimezie> jjc: suggesting we decide how we specify multiple test outputs *after* a first WD publication
<scribe> ACTION: to send out Jeremy's message in response to Eliotte Rusty Harold [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action05]
Chime: Suggestions for informative text and informative rules to address Stefano.
If DanC disappears, we're not going to have co-editor for the spec?
<scribe> ACTION: HarryH to ask DanC for permission to check edits in that get WG consensus if DanC is unavailable. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action06]
Can we just put library transforms in test doc or primer?
<scribe> ACTION: Chime to put library transforms in Test Doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action07]
<scribe> ACTION: HarryH to make sure library transforms are linked from Primer. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action08]
<chimezie> jjc: transformation libraries are both inefficient and (broken?) in some case..
<jjc> jeremy to create library page
<jjc> jeremy to suggest changes to library transforms
<scribe> ACTION: Jeremy tocreate a standalone library transform page and suggest changes to library transform [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action09]
Are n3 rules helpful enough to put right next to normative text?
<chimezie> I think so
<jjc> no the
<jjc> i don't think
I thought it might trip implementers up but it is informative.
The decision in editor's hands.
<chimezie> jjc: thinks they should have been moved to an appendix