W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2009

Re: minutes -> wiki magic?

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:48:17 -0500
Message-ID: <49A70E21.3040504@thefigtrees.net>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: eric@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote:
> [cc'd www-archive, in case others get interested]


> [You write about perhaps using the scribe tools OWL-WG is using]
> Sure, I'd be happy to have you guys as the second users.  (Eric just
> grabbed me in the hall to talk about it.)
> Is your wiki up and running?   

Yes, it's at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/ though it's still sparse.

> Where in web space do you want minutes to appear?
 > For OWL, the chatlogs, which start as IRC logs and are then cleaned up
 > are named like:
 >     http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Chatlog_2009-02-23
 > and the formatted minutes are named like this:
 >     http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-02-23

We're pretty much duplicating the Web-space structure that OWL WG is 
using, so I'd imagine chat logs at:


with formatted minutes at:


I was a bit confused by 
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Minutes_Review_Conventions which 
suggests that the minutes are on the wiki and editable by any WG member 
when, in fact, that's not the case?

> You'll also need a wiki page like:
>     http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Participants2
> which doesn't exactly match the other databases of participants because:
>       - it needs to list all the irc names used for people which
>         can not be derived by the algorithm
>       - it needs to list everyone who has attended any meeting,
>         including guests and part-participants

OK, I have an initial stab at this at:


> (One of the current bugs in the system is around the handling of the
> participant list.  The list really needs to have a transaction-log
> style, so that we can tell who the participants (really "attendees")
> were at any given point in time.  If that list changes later, then a
> name might BECOME ambiguous after-the-fact, which would make old minutes
> harder to work with.  So, for now you can use the Participants2 style,
> and expect at some point we'll have to upgrade this to a transaction-log
> style.)


Out first meeting's logs were at


What next? :)


> BTW, the script has a clear object model of MeetingEvents which could be
> dumped in RDF/XML easily.  I was going to dump them all into virtuoso at
> one point, but never quite got there.  Of course I'm not sure it would
> be socially good to have it easy to datamine the meeting records.
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 21:49:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:34 UTC