GRDDL Weekly Minutes 27th September

Convene GRDDL WG meeting of 2006-09-27T11:00-0400

Scribe: FabienGandon

See minutes of 20th September

RESOLUTION: to approve minutes 20th Sep

HarryH: SW coordination group accepts the idea of issuing the drafts of 
the primer and the use case document first and later the specs.
publication schedule
Discussion of Primer Document

Ian: my access to the CVS rep. is setup but to be tested.

Ian: I am happy with the comments but I need some more time to integrate 
them.

Harry: I am ok to go to draft without all the examples/sample files as 
long as they are included in next version

Harry: At least simple sample files for input and output should be 
available on the web.

Chimezie:I wouldn't say the primer is ready to ship. The main parts that 
weren't clear to me was the use of XFN and the role of 'spidering'

DanC I'm torn... you never get a 2nd chance to make a 1st impression... 
but I really want to ship something in September.

Murray: Can we have the use case first then the primer then the spec ; 
this would give us some time and let people absorb the different docs

Ian: I agree the primer could you some additional time.

<Ian:> it needs more time, but i think we should publish primer sooner 
not later and get more public feedback

Harry: could we setup a comment list?

<DanC:> ideas: grddl-talk, public-grddl-comments, public-grddl-talk, 
public-grddl-forum

<HarryH:> perhaps public-grddl-comments

<DanC> ACTION: DanC to set up public-grddl-comments [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action01]
Review of Use Cases document, reviewing actions from last meeting

Murray: sent a review on the vocabulary.

<DanC> 1.33 glossary 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc43/scenario-gallery.htm

Murray: the introduction I wrote for the specs could be used in other docs.

<chimezie> both primer and usecase documents have different audiences so 
abstracts/intros would expected to be different in what they are tryin 
to communicate

DanC: you need both teh abstract and an introduction.

FG: for the time being I only maintain the abstract, if we need an intro 
we could get it from the last version of the abstract.

<DanC> (abstract I just wrote is in 1.94 
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec )

Murray: the introduction I wrote plus the one of the primer plus a 
simple example would be a good introduction for all three docs.

Chimezie: the audience matters in the introduction

<DanC> yes, "A number of documents contain data that could be valuable 
if they were automatically accessible." is good.

Harry: I like Murray's intro; I don't want knowledge representation to 
appear in the intro

DanC: want to get it out in September but seems we still some more 
discussions

Chimezie: a common abstract could have an added value but the current 
versions are not too far from the quality to be shipped

<chimezie> My problem with not using knowledge representation (or 
something similar) is that metadata doesn't really say anything.

<HarryH> I believe I avoided both the words 'metadata' and 'knowledge 
represetnation' in my revised wording :)

<DanC> . ACTION DanC: coordinate edits on the abstracts and intros thru 
Friday noon chicago/boston time

<scribe> ACTION: DanC to coordinate edits on the abstracts and intros 
thru Friday noon chicago/boston time [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action03]

Harry: uses cases should be published ASAP.

<HarryH> my take on use-case intro in this e-mail: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Sep/0164.html

Ryager: I missed the date for the review.
... I read the version of saturday and I approved it. I will re-read the 
next version.

Murray: discuss the vocabulary choice

Chimezie: no strong feeling on this

Ryager: the intro reads strange.

<chimezie> my argument for terminology as is: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Sep/0178.html

Danc: we are changing the intro.
... possible candidates: GRDDL-candidate doc, GRDDL source document, 
others? What are the preferences?

Harry: let's go arround the table.

DanC: Processor ok, GRDDL(aware) agent, source document

<DanC> I prefer GRDDL-aware agent/client, source document, GRDDL 
transformation

Ian: like source document

<DanC> I meant to say I *don't* like processor.

Chimezie: like the doc as it is

<HarryH> Harry: client rather than agent

Harry: source doc ok, processor fine, transformation ok

Fabien: I hear "GRDDL client" do we have consensus?

Murray: well, add "aware".

Fabien "source document" seems ok to me

<chimezie> Agent has a specific connotation, client is so open-ended 
that is says nothing other than it operates over a network

Murray: how about "GRDDL agent" and "result document"?

Chimezie: I don't like "client"...

Murray: "user agent" is the neutral term in place of "browser"

Fabien: source document, GRDDL transformation seem clear...

Harry: I don't hear consensus around GRDDL processor/agent/client... 
"aware"...

DanC whereas it doesn't affect running code, I'm happy to delegate to 
the editor, i.e. have Fabien pick

Harry: or maybe "agent" is the preference?

Fabien: My opinion: "source document", "GRDDL transformation", "GRDDL agent"

Fabien: Consensus: "source document", "GRDDL transformation", 
"GRDDL-aware agent"

Harry: so "grddl aware agent", "source document", "GRDDL transformation"?

<HarryH> result document?

<DanC> (no objection to "grddl aware agent", "source document", "GRDDL 
transformation")

Murray and "result document"?

Harry: any objection to s/GRDDL result document/result document/?

Rachel: I don't like "GRDDL result document"

RESOLVED: vocabulary is "grddl-aware agent" "source document" "GRDDL 
transformation" "result document"

<scribe> ACTION: Fabien to use "source document", "result document", 
"GRDDL transformation", "GRDDL-aware agent" [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action04]

Harry: consensus about the rest of the doc?

DanC: there was a pb with the pictures.

Murray: I just meant that the edits should include the pictures as well 
as the text.

Fabien: there was an objection from Danny on wiki pictures and xform 
picture. I'm working on integrating a figure suggestion from Chimezie

<scribe> ACTION: Fabien to integrate Chimezie's picture about XForms 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action05]

<DanC> PROPOSED: to publish use cases 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc43/scenario-gallery.htm 1.33 + 
edits to introduction, glossary, and XForms diagram as agreed by 2 of 
DanC, Ian, Fabien, Murray by Friday noon chicago time

HarryH: try to avoid changing everything before releasing

Murray: I second the proposal

No objection.

<DanC> so RESOLVED.

RESOLUTION: to publish use cases 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc43/scenario-gallery.htm 1.33 + 
edits to introduction, glossary, and XForms diagram as agreed by 2 of 
DanC, Ian, Fabien, Murray by Friday noon chicago time

HarryH: do we release the primer on friday?

DanC: if we are happy with the inro and abstract? can we ship the primer 
too? I would like to ship both the primer and uses case docs at the same 
time.

<scribe> ACTION: Fabien to try to get a diagram on the XFN part of the 
primer before friday. [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action06]

Chimezie: we need more details to understand the XFN and make the diagram.

<DanC> noodling on proposal: PROPOSED: to release GRDDL Primer as a W3C 
WD, contingent on OK from Harry and Chime on XFN-related edits.

Murray the signposting [?] is misleading. I'd really like the section 
headings changed as I suggested.

IanD: I don't understand what is misleading.

DanC: may be we are asking the reader to store too much before getting 
to the punch line.

MM: it is not a big pb i.e. we shouldn't stop publishing because of that.

<DanC> 6180 2006-09-27 13:29:57Z

<DanC> PROPOSED: to release GRDDL Primer v 6180 + edits to abstract, 
intro agreed by IanD+DanC as a W3C WD, contingent on OK from Harry and 
Chime on XFN-related edits.

Chimezie: I second.

<DanC> so RESOLVED.

RESOLUTION: to release GRDDL Primer v 6180 + edits to abstract, intro 
agreed by IanD+DanC as a W3C WD, contingent on OK from Harry and Chime 
on XFN-related edits.

DanC: people on critical path are DanC, Chimezie, Ian, Harry, Murray, Fabien

<ryager> I've to run. See you!

<DanC> target timing: request to webmaster Fri, title page date Mon 2 
Oct, publication on 2, 3, 4, or 5 Oct.

<HarryH> Gotta run!

<DanC> * chimezie gives regrets for next week

<DanC> me too. I'm at a TAG meeting.

Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: DanC to coordinate edits on the abstracts and intros thru 
Friday noon chicago/boston time [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: DanC to create the mailing list public-grddl-comments 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: DanC to set up public-grddl-comments [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Fabien to integrate Chimezie's picture about XForms 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Fabien to try to get a diagram on the XFN part of the 
primer before friday. [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Fabien to use "source document", "result document", "GRDDL 
transformation", "GRDDL-aware agent" [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/09/27-grddl-wg-minutes.html#action04]