W3C

- DRAFT -

GRDDL WG Weekly Telecon

18 Oct 2006

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
DanC, bwm, Ian, briansuda, Rachel_Yager, Ben_Adida, Murray_Maloney, Chimezie_Ogbuji
Regrets
Adida, DannyA, FabienG, HarryH
Chair
DanC
Scribe
bwm_scribe

Contents


 

 

Convene GRDDL WG meeting of 2006-10-18T11:00-0400

<DanC> I tweaked the agenda a bit; see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/weekly-agenda 1.49

<briansuda> Zakim [IPcaller] is briansuda

<DanC> RESOLVED: to accept http://www.w3.org/2006/10/04-grddl-wg-minutes as a true record

<DanC> RESOLVED: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Oct/0023.html is a true record

Cross-document Introduction

<DanC> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#intro v 1.120 2006/10/18 06:01:56

<DanC> ACTION: DanC to flesh out ways to express author information in different markup languages [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action01]

<DanC> some progress

xhtml example removed to help text fit page better

iandd: has a stonger feeling that there should be an xhtml example

?? there are a lot of xhtml examples

iand: I can live with this - just wondering if other people had the same feeling

danc: I will think about it further

re ACTION:: iand to review Murray's suggested intro

the intro has been revised

iand: would like to continue action to review in new version within week

<scribe> ACTION:: iand to review Murray's suggested intro [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action02]

chime: some aspects of the intro (last edit) had a peice about Stephen King that I thought didn't make sense in a specifcation rather than a primer. What roles do the different documents play

danc: I'm thinking that the spec readers will find a brief explanation of RDF useful

murray: one of the goals of a common introduction is that previously the different intro's were trying to say the same thing but saying it differently

scribe: some of them drew value judgements about RDF that risked offending readers

chimezie: can you provide an example?

murray: they said RDF enabled automation - but there's been automation for a while without RDF. ... tried to say the same things in a more neutral way
... laying out the background for a problem space
... suggests value is common form across different xml dialects
... experienced readers will skim intro, less experienced will read intro
... intro has a guide to the other documents to aid readers navigate the document set
... example removed last night after discussion with DanC

chimezie: is the aim not to repeat intro?

murray: my aim was to have a common intro - only slightly taylored for each one.

chimezie: seems to me like different docs need different intros

danc: in the primer I don't want background, I want it to tell me what to type

iand: should we explain the benefits of RDF in these documents

chimexie: I have issues with the explanation of RDF because it tries to add value to RDF.

DanC: do you want the paragraph struck?

chimezie: I would like one para struck

murray: if you take that out - it breaks the flow - need to remove the whole intro

chimezie: I don't agree

DanC: I disagree [with Chimezie]

Murray: do you think its harmful?

chimizie: my problem is that the text still tries to add value to RDF at the expense of other technologies

chimezie: I think the problem is that we don't have consensus on the purpose of each document

danc: we don't have to agree on that; we have to agree on the text

Murray: I have proposed a cross set intro - but we haven't reached agreement on that
... the intro explains the bare minimum of what RDF is about
... I tried to ensure that the bit about RDF was not bragging

chimezie: I have more of a concern if the language is about RDF; my issue with the introductions is really to do with where they are in the documents; its not a strong objection

danc: if you get inspiration on how to change this pleas send mail

[#issue-output-formats] whether GRDDL transformations may produce RDF in a format other than RDF/XML

Danc: I removed references to 'meanings' and expressed things in terms of graphs - e.g. merging graphs
... it was more straightforward to talk about graphs than rdf/xml documents

chimezie: I originally had that opinion, but for interoperability reasons it is better to have one format

danc: interoperability is important, but we can address the format issue elsewhere
... our test cases will be rdf/xml

chimezie: if you don't require it, then the processor has to cope

danc: I don't think this increases the implementation burden

iand: most implementations run xslt and then have to parse the results

scribe: the output of the xsl is a textual format usually rdf/xml - but it could be n3

danc: does that make sense to you?
... the xslt process can set the output media type

chimezie: not all transforms can output a mime-type

danc: the spec requires the output is an rdf graph - which implies there must be a mime-type

murray: the transform may have a graph - then serialise it

danc: as opposed to passing the graph over with an api call - yeah

chimezie: there is a significant difference between outputing a graph and outputing a serialization of a graph which need thought through

<chimezie> the transformation algorithm for the most part is a syntactic transformation

iand: the user sees a graph; how does the processor know how to output the graph

danc: we'll show examples

iand: what is the most interoperable way to do it

danc: xslt 1.0 and rdf/xml

chimezie: if the spec talks about graphs - it opens a can of worms
... if you require a specific syntax then there are fewer worms

danc: the worms are there whatever you do - if the spec says rdf/xml and you get something else - the code still has to cope
... I suggest you try working it out because it was not straightforward when I tried it

chimezie: if you allow multiple syntaxes then the code is more complex

murray: could we have a section on exposing the GRDDL results

chimezie: murray you previously argued for 1 in and 1 out to make it easier to support multiple syntaxes

murray: DanC's policy is to talk about what is in the spec

chimezie: what does a processor have to spit out?

murray: its your processor that is running - so you can write your code to assume what your processor does.

chimezie: it works for xslt but not all transform languages can output a mime-type.
... if you have a transform which you refer to, say java script
... which produces a concrete syntax
...

danc: what the spec requires is that the transform output a graph

chimezie: maybe I should formulate a test case and discuss later

murray: do we need a section on implementation guideance on output

danc: I think the market place will take care of this

<DanC> ACTION: DanC to add a sample implementation appendix to the GRDDL spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action03]

danc: we are planning to release spec 24 Oct
... please support or abstain from that

ben: do you need that now

danc: I need an answer by the end fo the week

<DanC> ACTION: BenA to review grddl spec 1.120 by end of week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action04]

Ben: ok I'll do that

<scribe> ACTION: chimezie develop test case to illustrate issues with output as graph rather than specific serialization. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action05]

toward GRDDL Spec Working Draft

ian: would like to see released though have not fully reviewed

danc: the question is "how do we feel about releasing the grddl spec on 24 Oct"

rachel: sounds good but want to double check

<DanC> (critical path: BenA, RachaelY, ...)

brianS: I trust editor to make changes

<DanC> (critical path: BenA, RachaelY, Chime)

murray: authorize editor to take steps needed to get published and do not need to be in critical path

chimize: would like to be in critical path and am happy with deadline

<DanC> PROPOSED: to publish 24 Oct, contingent on editor (DanC) satisfying comments to come from BenA, Chime, Rachael

<DanC> PROPOSED: to publish 24 Oct http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec 1.120 + edits by DanC, contingent on editor (DanC) satisfying comments to come from BenA, Chime, Rachael

chime: will changes only be prompted by those on critical path

danc: there are changes I expect to make, reviewing my @@ comments
... including fiture changes, citation cleanups,

murray: remove the log?

danc: sometimes I trim but leave it there

murray: awkward if you are printing

danc: not all @@'s will be addressed

seconded: chime

no objections or abstentions

so resolved

Primer Document pending edits

iand: I am working on primer document edits

<DanC> ACTION: Iand to address comments on primer [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action06]

iand: was held up by cvs access, but that is now fixed
... will respond to comments as I do the edits

<DanC> ACTION: Brian and Harry to produce additional running code for the second part of the primer [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action07]

danc: brian - you and harry have action to write code - any news

brian: no progres yet
... do we need to respond to comments on the public list

iand: that's what I'll be doing

murray: what sort of comments

iand: some editorial, some on how vcalendar works

chime: was there a comment about an xml only example?

danc: there was a comment from Michael U? Shall I take that

<DanC> ACTION: DanC to respond to comment from Hausenblas, Michael http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2006OctDec/0005.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action08]

iand: yes please

chime: is there some way I can help with base param issue

danc: you are welcome to construct test cases

chime: if that's how I can help, that's what I'll do

<ryager> I've to run. Bye.

[#issue-base-param]

<scribe> ACTION: chime to help danc with test cases on base param issue. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action09]

murray: is just for html documents

chime: also for xml documents

murray: does it go away if there is an explicit base

<DanC> ACTION: Danny to take testing test harness. [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action10]

chime: the issue what to do when it isn't clear what the base it - what do you do?

<DanC> ACTION: Murray to suggest what GRDDL spec issues are covered by XML Processing, suggestion on how to fix it. [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action11]

<DanC> ACTION:Iand to construct a content negotiation test case [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action12]

propose to adjourn

murray: seconded

<DanC> ADJOURN.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: BenA to review grddl spec 1.120 by end of week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: chime to help danc with test cases on base param issue. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: chimezie develop test case to illustrate issues with output as graph rather than specific serialization. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: DanC to add a sample implementaiton appendix to the GRDDL spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: DanC to respond to comment from Hausenblas, Michael http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2006OctDec/0005.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action08]
 
[PENDING] ACTION: : iand to review Murray's suggested intro [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action02]
[PENDING] ACTION: Brian and Harry to produce additional running code for the second part of the primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action07]
[PENDING] ACTION: DanC to flesh out ways to express author information in different markup languages [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action01]
[PENDING] ACTION: Danny to take testing test harness. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action10]
[PENDING] ACTION: Iand to address comments on primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action06]
[PENDING] ACTION: Iand to construct a content negotiation test case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action12]
[PENDING] ACTION: Murray to suggest what GRDDL spec issues are covered by XML Processing, suggestion on how to fix it. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action11]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/10/18 16:06:29 $