[wbs] response to 'GRDDL charter input, meeting at Tech Plenary'

Here are the answers submitted to 'GRDDL charter input, meeting at Tech
Plenary' (the public) for Ben Adida.



---------------------------------
Are you interested in a meeting about GRDDL during the 2006 Tech Plenary?
----
Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages, GRDDL, is a
technique for connecting microformats and other XHTML and XML dialects
with the Semantic Web. See 
GRDDL Data Views: Getting Started, Learning More for details.

The 2006 W3C Technical Plenary and WG Meeting Week is 27 February - 03
March 2006 in Mandelieu, France.

There will probably be some microformats stuff on the plenary day on
Wednesday.

Are you interested in a meeting about GRDDL? Maybe for a couple hours on
Thursday, 2 Mar 2006, perhaps as part of a Semantic Web Interest Group
meeting?



 * [ ] Yes, I'm interested and available in a meeting at the TP some time
on Thursday, 2 March.
 * [ ] Yes, I'm interested, and I plan to be at the TP, but I have a
conflict for Thu, 2 Mar. (please suggest an alternative in a comment)
 * [x] I'm interested but not available to travel to the TP. I might be
interested to follow the meeting remotely by phone and/or IRC. I'm
interested in any outcome from such a meeting.
 * [ ] I'm not interested in a meeting.

 





---------------------------------
What is your level of interest in GRDDL?
----
Have you played with it?



 * [x] I'm convinced GRDDL is worth standardization; I'd like to
participate in a mailing list, maybe teleconferences, work on detailed
tests and examples and maybe even help polish the spec text.
 * [ ] I've used GRDDL and expect to continue using it.
 * [ ] I'm evaluating GRDDL.
 * [ ] I'm developing software that consumes GRDDL documents.
 * [ ] I'm developing microformats or dialects or formats for use with
GRDDL.
 * [ ] I'm developing content that uses GRDDL.

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 





---------------------------------
GRDDL issues?
----
In addition to the issues in the author's draft, do you see any issues
with the GRDDL spec? Are they part of the "minimum necessary to declare
victory"? Or are they things that would be nice but aren't critical?

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
This is certainly in the draft, but I'm particularly interested in GRDDL
declared in schema documents, whether XML or MicroFormats




---------------------------------
Should the GRDDL charter include a requirements/use-cases phase?
----
Should standardization of GRDDL begin with documentation of use cases and
requirements? Should a GRDDL working group start with explicit
story-telling to get shared vocabulary and such?

A "no" answer indicates that the use cases and requirements are clear
enough; i.e. that you would prefer to just resolve outstanding technical
issues.



 * ( ) Yes
 * ( ) No
 * (x) Concur (cast vote with the majority)
 * ( ) Blank vote

Rationale: 
GRDDL use cases seem clear to me, but if they're not clear to everyone,
then some time should be spent on that aspect.
Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 





---------------------------------
Is remote work sufficient for finishing GRDDL?
----
Is remote collaboration (email, IRC, teleconferences) sufficient for
finishing GRDDL?

A "no" answer indicates that you prefer that the group have face-to-face
meetings in addition to this get-together at the Technical Plenary.


 * (x) Yes
 * ( ) No
 * ( ) Concur (cast vote with the majority)
 * ( ) Blank vote

Rationale: 
The large issues have been worked out by the authors already, so it seems
the issues left on the table are mostly technical.
Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 



These answers were last modified on 24 January 2006 at 23:44:16 U.T.C.
by Ben Adida

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/grddl-cfi/ until 2006-02-02.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 23:47:05 UTC