- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:40:02 +0000
- To: sean@mysterylights.com,www-archive@w3.org
Here are the answers submitted to 'GRDDL charter input, meeting at Tech Plenary' (the public) for Sean Palmer. --------------------------------- 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. I'd probably be able to follow along on IRC, but when you can only follow F2F meetings by phone or IRC you tend to miss a lot that's going on. --------------------------------- 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): The level to which I'd be able to participate is up in the air, but ideally I'd like to help and participate as much as I can. --------------------------------- 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): TimBL has said that: "With data, generate HTML from the RDF, not the other way around." - http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/1110-iswc-tbl/#(2) I very much disagree with this, and I've stated so before: http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2006-01-05.html#T16-36-42 I don't think the Semantic Web can constrain itself to saying "you have to use format X when transporting data", when format X is designed like RDF/XML. N-Triples with, possibly, prefixes enabled and then gzipped over the wire is likely the most efficient mechanism for transporting RDF. Turtle is the most readable. GRDDL is the most practical. RDF/XML was out of date almost by the time it was published, then took several more years to "fix", and we're still debating how to make it less confusing to developers: http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2006-01-27.html#T16-25-08 So developing, standardising (carefully), and proselytising GRDDL would be a great boon for developers--if it were to be considered a viable first class source of RDF data. A corollary issue is that of RDF/XML becoming the normative output format of GRDDL; indeed, I'm even adverse to its being used in examples. Relegating GRDDL to a secondary format and imposing RDF/XML output would be shooting the format in the foot, and given the kinds of people who are watching GRDDL right now, that would be very embarrassing. --------------------------------- 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: Requiring two implementations at the CR stage is not enough: there should be ten working implementations and fifteen buggy ones before a draft reaches Last Call, for something as straightforward as GRDDL. Use cases are the progenitors of implementations. Requirements often only arise when implementations are worked on. When you have a proliferation of implementations only then do you know that a format has been worthwhile. Some formats don't even undergo proper standardisation--mbox and tab delimited spring to mind--because people have just been using them since forever because there was such a need. If there isn't that kind of need for GRDDL, why are we bothering? If there is, then generating as much early interest in implementing and using, and producing a format by evolution (cf. N3), will hopefully precipitate a snowball effect. Can an evolutionary format even be developed at W3C? Its discrete standardisation procedure doesn't seem amenable to that, but I'd like to be proven wrong. 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: I don't think that F2F meetings should be avoided, but I think that the bulk of the work should be conducted where there's a decent paper trail. Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): These answers were last modified on 28 January 2006 at 06:36:29 U.T.C. by Sean Palmer 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 Saturday, 28 January 2006 06:40:13 UTC