[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 Brian McBride.



---------------------------------
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?



 * [x] 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)
 * [ ] 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.
 * [x] 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): 
I think there are at least two things missing:

1) a way to describe what a transformation does so an app can pick out the
one it wants

2) a way to describe a transformation on a (set of) pages without access
to the pages themselves or their schema.  It will be useful for
bootstrapping the semantic web to be able for those other than the
publishers of information to publish a transform on that information.

One way to do this would be to define an RDF Schema for describing what
transforms are available on what pages.  Ideally then, a service could
support SPARQL queries to find transforms that meet users needs. 

I'm not sure if these are necessary.  For my goals they are, but that
doesn't mean that useful progress can't be made without them.




---------------------------------
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.



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

Rationale: 
Since I'm proposing extensions I must have in mind use cases that have not
been considered.

I won't "die in the ditch" over these.  I could be persuaded they should
not be addressed in a first version.  Its expensive getting to rec so,
though I'm mindful of the value of a slam dunk on what exists, I'm would
currently prefer to see these additions addressed.
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.


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

Rationale: 
I'm not sure.  I'd like to be able to do it all remotely, but I'm not sure
that will be possible.  A charter that said f2f meetings MAY be required,
but will be avoided if possible might work.
Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 



These answers were last modified on 27 January 2006 at 13:25:40 U.T.C.
by Brian McBride

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 Friday, 27 January 2006 13:32:06 UTC