- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:48:17 -0500
- 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] Great. > [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: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Chatlog_%yyyy-%mm-%dd with formatted minutes at: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/%yyyy-%mm-%dd 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: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Participants2 > (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.) OK. Out first meeting's logs were at http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-sparql-irc.txt http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-sparql-minutes.html What next? :) Lee > 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