IRC log of #tagmem on 2002-02-18
Timestamps are in US East Coast.
[10:31:41]
<ian_> Action item review
[10:31:59]
<ian_> 1. Summarize different approaches currently used for mapping URIs to media types.
[10:32:01]
<ian_> Subsumed.
[10:32:35]
<Zakim> +DanC
[10:32:49]
<ian_> Agenda:
[10:32:51]
<ian_> a) Action item reviwe
[10:32:59]
<ian_> b) Issues described as "meta" in www-tag.
[10:33:06]
<DanC> agenda += Admin: action review
[10:33:08]
<Zakim> +DOrchard
[10:33:13]
<DanC> agenda+ Admin: action review
[10:33:14]
* Zakim notes agendum 1 added
[10:33:22]
<ian_> RF: Maintain "Assigned to Assigned at Status Summarize different approaches currently used for mapping URIs to media types."
[10:33:48]
<DanC> "meta" in www-tag? or in tag@w3.org?
[10:33:49]
<ian_> TB: Is Eastlake's the only proposal in play?
[10:34:01]
<ian_> RF: People posted a couple to the mailing list.
[10:34:07]
<Zakim> + +1.604.932.aaaa
[10:34:09]
<ian_> SW: See Graham Klyne's email.
[10:34:24]
<TimBL> Zakim, who is here?
[10:34:25]
<Zakim> I see TimBL, Stuart, N.Walsh, TBray, Roy, Ian, DanC, DOrchard, +1.604.932.aaaa
[10:34:32]
<DanC> Zakim, PaulC just joined
[10:34:33]
<Zakim> I don't understand 'PaulC just joined', DanC. Try /msg Zakim help
[10:34:40]
<DanC> Zakim, PaulC just arrived
[10:34:40]
<TimBL> Zakim, +1.604.932.aaaa is PaulC
[10:34:41]
<Zakim> I don't understand 'PaulC just arrived', DanC. Try /msg Zakim help
[10:34:41]
<Zakim> +PaulC; got it
[10:35:01]
<ian_> "Summarize TAG findings on using URIs: (a) use URIs when naming in context of Web (2) should be able to follow URI to explanatory material (3) software is not required to follow a URI when processing it"
[10:35:10]
<ian_> PC: I sent a note that I wouldn't do this until it settled down.
[10:35:19]
<ian_> DC: How do we make progress?
[10:35:27]
--> Dave (~dorchard@ekgj2138y129i.bc.hsia.telus.net) has joined #tagmem
[10:35:42]
<ian_> PC: I'd prefer to postpone for now.
[10:36:02]
<ian_> ...early findings from ftf were mooted by discussions two hours later.
[10:36:28]
<ian_> q
[10:36:32]
<ian_> +q
[10:36:33]
* Zakim wonders where q is
[10:36:35]
<ian_> q+
[10:36:36]
* Zakim sees Ian_ on the speaker queue
[10:37:24]
<Dave> ping
[10:37:33]
<Norm> pong, Dave
[10:37:34]
<-- Dave (~dorchard@ekgj2138y129i.bc.hsia.telus.net) has left #tagmem (Dave)
[10:37:37]
--> Dave (~dorchard@ekgj2138y129i.bc.hsia.telus.net) has joined #tagmem
[10:37:42]
<Dave> ping
[10:37:46]
<Norm> pong, Dave
[10:37:54]
<ian_> PC: Can the WG confirm the three proposed points: "Summarize TAG findings on using URIs: (a) use URIs when naming in context of Web (2) should be able to follow URI to explanatory material (3) software is not required to follow a URI when processing it"
[10:38:20]
<ian_> TB: We have some agnst - I don't want the entire world to disappear behind an @@ document.
[10:38:28]
* ian_ missed format TB mentioned.
[10:38:38]
<ian_> Conclusion: PC's action postponed.
[10:38:39]
<DanC> @@=XSD, i.e. W3C XML Schema
[10:38:40]
<Norm> ian_: he said XSD
[10:38:52]
<ian_> Done: Ping Misha and Martin and ask them to copy their concerns to the (XML?) IG so we can quote it.
[10:39:13]
<ian_> Done: Write up that the TAG approves of IETF draft from Don Eastlake with "http:" instead of "content-type:".
[10:39:20]
<ian_> SW: I also raised discussion points:
[10:40:03]
<Norm> URI: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Feb/0036.html
[10:40:28]
<ian_> TBL: Please make this finding public.
[10:40:42]
<ian_> Action SW: Send the same information to the www-tag. Indicate draft status.
[10:41:36]
<TimBL> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2002Feb/0044.html
[10:41:41]
<ian_> ----------------------------
[10:42:03]
<ian_> "What is the significance of a namespace?
[10:42:03]
<ian_> "
[10:42:21]
<ian_> "How do we expect languages to be defined?"
[10:42:35]
<ian_> "What about the idea of resources that are both human- and
[10:42:35]
<ian_> machine-readable?
[10:42:35]
<ian_> "
[10:42:44]
<ian_> TBL: Need to write down what we believe and why we believe it.
[10:43:52]
<TimBray> BTW, I have a new headset... plaease complain if I'm staticy or inaudible
[10:43:59]
<ian_> TBL: We can't have a nihlistic void behind this. The Web does have certain assumptions behind it. We don't have a carte blanche to rephilosophize everything.
[10:44:08]
* ian_ notes that TB is a little quiet.
[10:44:40]
<ian_> TB: TBL, can you be more explicit about possible outcomes?
[10:44:55]
<ian_> TBL: I think that we largely agree on matters; differences are in how we express ourselves.
[10:45:13]
<DanC> I read http://www.textuality.com/tag/Issue8.html and I was fine until point 14. The premise of thesis 14 is that schemas are all about syntax. phooey
[10:45:53]
<ian_> TBL: ...but if the TAG were not to be able to make any statement about messages having "meaning" (or some other word), i.e., no bits have any meaning, I would not be happy.
[10:46:01]
<ian_> TB: Let's take that as a strawman.
[10:46:19]
<ian_> "Architectural Themes on Namespaces and Namespace Documents" by TB
[10:46:26]
<ian_> http://www.textuality.com/tag/Issue8.html
[10:47:42]
<DanC> actually, I take issue with thesis 13 too; when you pick a format for the namespace document, you're necessarily going to prefer certain applications (e.g. web browsing) than others.
[10:48:50]
* TimBL opens the floor using Zakim's queue
[10:49:16]
<TimBL> ack DanC
[10:49:17]
* Zakim sees Ian_ on the speaker queue
[10:49:39]
<ian_> DC: Re 14: Namespace documents should not be schemas. This is a tenuous fit for RDF Schema. I don't think of schemas as simply constraining syntax.
[10:49:48]
<Dave> +1
[10:49:49]
* Zakim wonders where 1 is
[10:49:52]
<Dave> argh
[10:49:55]
<ian_> DC: ...RDF schemas are usually about licensing inferences.
[10:50:02]
<Dave> q +1
[10:50:04]
<ian_> PC: XML Schemas tell you how to validate. That's it.
[10:50:13]
<ian_> DC: You can't put anything in appinfo about what terms mean?
[10:50:21]
<ian_> PC: Yes, you can do that, but that's not part of the xml schema spec.
[10:50:58]
<ian_> TBL: I think we have a communications issue here. "Schema" being used to describe syntactic constraints only, while DC using term to include some semantic info as well.
[10:51:18]
<ian_> TBL: Can people agree to: "Unreasonable to limit descriptions to only syntactic constraints."
[10:51:34]
<ian_> ...are you agreeing that namespace not only be coupled to a syntactic thing?
[10:51:38]
<ian_> DC: I'd buy that.
[10:51:40]
<ian_> Proposed:
[10:51:45]
<TimBL> q?
[10:51:45]
* Zakim sees Ian_ on the speaker queue
[10:51:48]
<ian_> q-
[10:51:49]
* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[10:51:58]
<Dave> q+
[10:51:59]
* Zakim sees Dave on the speaker queue
[10:52:01]
<TimBL> ack Ian
[10:52:02]
* Zakim sees Dave on the speaker queue
[10:52:08]
<TimBL> ack Dave
[10:52:08]
<ian_> TB: Heads-up - world thinks it knows what schemas are.
[10:52:09]
* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[10:52:18]
<TimBL> Zakim, who is here?
[10:52:19]
<Zakim> I see TimBL, Stuart, N.Walsh, TBray, Roy, Ian, DanC, DOrchard, PaulC
[10:52:50]
<DanC> q+
[10:52:51]
* Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue
[10:52:55]
<ian_> DO: I put forth that the w3c/tag adopt that a schema puts syntactic constraints. Don't extend definition of schema beyond what general public thinks it means.
[10:53:02]
<ian_> TBL: RDF schema is on the boundary.
[10:53:19]
<ian_> ....people are writing DAML schemas that contain property values that allow you do inferences.
[10:53:26]
<TimBL> q?
[10:53:27]
* Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue
[10:53:30]
<TimBL> ack DanC
[10:53:31]
* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[10:53:48]
<ian_> DC: If schemas are about syntax only, I'm happy to rename RDF schemas. But I'm not convinced that all schemas are only about syntax. Take invoices, for example.
[10:53:56]
<ian_> TB: The machine readable part is only about syntax, isn't it?
[10:53:59]
<Roy> TB wrote "constraints on the syntax, structure, and content of resources." I take that to mean semantics of what is in the content.
[10:54:04]
<ian_> PC: You don't know what the recipient will do with the data.
[10:54:11]
<Norm> q+
[10:54:12]
* Zakim sees Norm on the speaker queue
[10:54:13]
<ian_> DC: I don't think that's true. People do have expectations.
[10:54:21]
<TimBray> q+
[10:54:22]
* Zakim sees Norm, TimBray on the speaker queue
[10:54:28]
<ian_> DC: ...whatever you put in appinfo tells you something about your vocabular.
[10:54:30]
<ian_> PC:
[10:54:36]
<ian_> 1) No standard way to do this in appinfo
[10:54:42]
<ian_> 2) This is work for next XML Schema WG.
[10:54:48]
<ian_> DC: I think people are already doing this.
[10:54:56]
<ian_> ...it doesn't have to be standardized to be working.
[10:55:04]
<TimBL> Charles Goldfarb's view is that the document type defined the meaning of tags as well as the syntactic constraints
[10:55:06]
<TimBL> q+
[10:55:07]
* Zakim sees Norm, TimBray, TimBL on the speaker queue
[10:55:16]
* ian_ forgot to invite RRSAGent.
[10:55:28]
<TimBray> SGML also holds that the "DTD" includes the human-readable & other accompanying docs
[10:55:37]
--> RRSAgent (~rrs-logge@tux.w3.org) has joined #tagmem
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 16:00:17 [ian_]
- NW: I have been thinking about what "meaning" mime type + bits has: There's more context than we currently express with mime types + bits. If you send me a purchase order, I will drop on the floor. I have no context with you to process invoices.
- 16:00:32 [ian_]
- NW: The schema (or Schema) + bits + media type don't give you anything.
- 16:00:37 [DanC]
- q+
- 16:00:49 [Stuart]
- +1 wrt Norm
- 16:01:09 [ian_]
- TB: I agree with NW - we can't yet just process messages for what they are.
- 16:01:53 [ian_]
- TB: On semantic information in schemas - in most cases, comments hold the status of comments. I think that these are red herrings in general. I would not react to non-standardized appinfo information. I would to previously engineered agreements between us, or on standardized terms.
- 16:01:55 [DanC]
- So if I publish a "this is a price quote schema; documents that use this schema are price quotes" at XYZ, then I publish another document that refers to XYZ and points to XYZ, I'm not accountable for the price quote? I don't have to sell you the goods at the quoted price?
- 16:02:15 [DanC]
- refers to and conforms to
- 16:02:43 [ian_]
- TBL: NW is absolutely right. Communication only happens between two parties when there is agreement about how to handle documents.
- 16:03:02 [TimBray]
- I think it's only binding because you've made a public *human-readable* statement
- 16:03:25 [ian_]
- ..our arrangement may be by phone, for example, with lots of context behind the word "sell", for example.
- 16:03:32 [ian_]
- (previous statement was by TBL)
- 16:04:04 [ian_]
- TBL: More context may be a given country's laws, for example. Two parties are "deemed to understand", for example.
- 16:04:09 [DanC]
- TimBray, suppose I write, in natural language, a human-readable spec for an assertion language, then I write the quote schema in that assertion language, then I publish the quote?
- 16:05:06 [ian_]
- TBL: What we do with the Web and Web protocols, we say that when you open a connection at port 80 (for example), you agree to take on certain responsibilities. Like opening a bank account implies agreement to a lot of contractual provisions.
- 16:05:38 [ian_]
- TBL: The Web works on a lot of common assumptions. When you use GET, you are saying "I will understand the bits in this context."
- 16:06:34 [ian_]
- TBL: So I agree with NW philosophically, but I think that there are commonly understood terms. Does that provide an adequate bridge between philosophy and meaning of standardized bits (e.g., for invoices)?
- 16:07:00 [ian_]
- TBL: And thus you would be justified in interpreting a well-defined invoice as an invoice, and not as something else.
- 16:07:39 [ian_]
- NW: Yes, if I've done something to indicate that I will accept purchase orders from you. I'm not sure that the fact that you've send me (unasked for) a document of a particular type, that I'm responsible for any particular action.
- 16:07:48 [TimBL]
- q?
- 16:07:50 [ian_]
- TBL: I'm not saying you're responsible for a particular action...
- 16:07:55 [Norm]
- q-
- 16:07:57 [TimBL]
- ack Norm
- 16:08:02 [TimBL]
- ack TimBL
- 16:08:06 [TimBL]
- ack TimBray
- 16:08:07 [ian_]
- DC: More scenarios:
- 16:08:15 [TimBL]
- ack danC
- 16:08:43 [ian_]
- - You write in HTML "I offer to sell widgets for $10" and provide a snail mail address. I send money and you say "No, I sell for $20." You can be sued today.
- 16:08:44 [TimBL]
- Scaenario 1 -- you advertize stg for $10 but later charge $20, you get sued
- 16:09:05 [ian_]
- - One step away: you write the same thing in well-defined schema. You should also get sued.
- 16:09:07 [ian_]
- NW: Right.
- 16:09:27 [ian_]
- NW: The distinction that is made is that I initiated this by publishing a quote in some recognized format.
- 16:09:40 [ian_]
- ...if I receive a response to that quote, I have to honor the meaning of that quote.
- 16:10:03 [ian_]
- DC: I agree - difficult to take on obligations by doing a GET. It's the publisher who takes on the obligations.
- 16:10:36 [ian_]
- DC: I said at ftf meeting that as long as you have a context of http + email, mime type + bits is enough to get meaning.
- 16:11:18 [DanC]
- something like that, yes.
- 16:11:42 [DanC]
- in particular: I think TimBL had the HTTP/email context implicitly in mind when he asked about mime type+bits; I think it's worth keeping explicit
- 16:12:21 [DanC]
- note: I've modelled a very small part of HTTP; not publishing, in particular.
- 16:12:23 [ian_]
- q+ PC
- 16:12:28 [DanC]
- q=PaulC
- 16:12:45 [TimBray]
- q?
- 16:12:53 [ian_]
- TBL garnering consensus: Perhaps the relationship is between the first half and second half of TOC. Perhaps my static view assumes the underlying protocols.
- 16:13:15 [ian_]
- TBL: And I have a set of documents with authors and access. I hear NW and DC asking why I would assume that.
- 16:13:35 [ian_]
- TBL: I would hope that in the architecture we attack both of these questions - we address the cases where the context is assumed and when it is not.[
- 16:13:57 [ian_]
- TBL: We should define "Web meaning".
- 16:14:09 [ian_]
- q+ NW
- 16:14:12 [DanC]
- speaking of TimBL's TOC, I re-published it [oops; need forward link as well as backlink] in wiki space http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/pywiki?WebArchitecture
- 16:15:48 [Norm]
- That's a lot more context than just the servers running...
- 16:16:12 [ian_]
- TBL: You can process a document in all kinds of ways. But I think you can't convey the intent of a document unless you respect the specifications used to compose the content.
- 16:16:41 [ian_]
- TBL: You are authorized to say what a document is by going through the steps set forth by the specs that the author has used.
- 16:17:03 [ian_]
- q+ IJ
- 16:17:09 [ian_]
- q- PaulC
- 16:17:12 [TimBray]
- q+
- 16:17:14 [ian_]
- q- NW
- 16:17:22 [Norm]
- q- NW
- 16:18:25 [ian_]
- TBL: PC, would you agree to the statement that the SOAP spec delegates meaning of message to contained stuff?
- 16:18:52 [TimBL]
- q+
- 16:19:02 [ian_]
- PC: There are multiple views. Not just simple case of something of type xml and a single processing inference. If you take SOAP, as the message goes along, there are other processing instructions.
- 16:19:40 [ian_]
- DC: At every point, you said "look at outermost context".
- 16:19:47 [ian_]
- PC: TBL said "hooked to mime type"
- 16:19:59 [ian_]
- TBL: At every point, a spec gives you a little bit, and tells you where to look next.
- 16:20:33 [ian_]
- PC: Then we are in agreement. When we write this down, make sure that we don't limit model to single processing pass.
- 16:21:55 [ian_]
- TBL: Summarizing
- 16:22:01 [ian_]
- 1) Recusion
- 16:22:16 [ian_]
- 2) Even in SOAP case, namespace is guide
- 16:22:26 [ian_]
- 3) There is also protocol stuff (constraints on sequencing).
- 16:22:35 [TimBL]
- q?
- 16:22:45 [TimBL]
- ack IJ
- 16:24:14 [TimBray]
- q-
- 16:24:36 [ian_]
- IJ: With TBL we looked at classifying documents for which looking inside the document can be useful.
- 16:24:47 [ian_]
- ...expressed in terms of constraints.
- 16:24:55 [ian_]
- TBL: IJ, please put that on queue for later discussion.
- 16:25:18 [TimBL]
- "generic processing of xml documents" - what can you do inside an xml document?
- 16:25:19 [ian_]
- TB: XHTML Modularization says 'when you post other stuff inside xhtml', it doesn't say anything about what the namespace should be.
- 16:25:41 [ian_]
- TB: In the case of RDDL, RDDL is supposed to (I guess) change its formal public identifier.
- 16:25:55 [ian_]
- TB: We may have to take the position where XHTML finds a better way to do this.
- 16:26:37 [ian_]
- PC: Isn't there mail saying that the thesis that there's a single root namespace is wrong?
- 16:26:51 [ian_]
- TB: I think the notion of xhtml as a host language with embedded things is a good idea.
- 16:27:40 [ian_]
- TBL: Does the concept of "Web meaning" seem useful to people?
- 16:27:42 [TimBray]
- aaaaaaaaaargh
- 16:27:47 [DanC]
- yes, let's please make mixing-XHTML-with-other-stuff an issue; I think the XHTML WG would like the help; maybe I can get them to ask us.
- 16:28:21 [ian_]
- DC: What about "Web context"?
- 16:28:31 [TimBray]
- q+
- 16:28:46 [ian_]
- TBL: There are a set of contexts that have something in common.
- 16:29:10 [ian_]
- TBL: For instance, a style sheet for me doesn't have meaning on its own; it's designed to be applied to something else. There are counter-examples as well.
- 16:29:31 [ian_]
- DC: I think this requires more than a term. Requires a page.
- 16:29:34 [TimBray]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Feb/0095.html
- 16:30:07 [ian_]
- TB: Job of W3C is to tell programmers what to do to not break the Web. I'd like to see the path from findings to programmers.
- 16:30:17 [TimBray]
- from *meanings* to programmers
- 16:30:23 [ian_]
- TBL: The "meaning" is about what you're licensed to do with a document given certain protocols.
- 16:30:48 [ian_]
- TBL: TB, could you have a go at your point 14?
- 16:31:23 [ian_]
- TB: Suppose I say "Examples of things that make poor namespace documents: [TB gives primarily syntactic contraint aggregations]"
- 16:31:41 [ian_]
- DC: No. I think the bulk of use is beyond syntactic constraints.
- 16:31:46 [ian_]
- PC, TB: We disagree.
- 16:33:27 [ian_]
- TB: SGML says explicitly that the document type definitions include, formally, human-readable documentation. There are more semantics than you can capture in a schema. And thus my point that schemas don't make good namespace documents.
- 16:33:47 [ian_]
- PC: Documents that indicate valid form of a document, are poor indicators of how a document should be processed.
- 16:34:03 [ian_]
- PC: The fallacy is that there's only one way to process a document.
- 16:34:07 [ian_]
- TBL: No one has said that.
- 16:34:31 [ian_]
- TBL: The schema doesn't say how to process a document.
- 16:34:36 [Roy]
- q+
- 16:34:40 [ian_]
- PC: It's wrong to put something in a schema to tell you how to process.
- 16:34:46 [TimBray]
- q-
- 16:34:58 [Stuart]
- q+
- 16:35:02 [ian_]
- TBL: People may put information in our out of a schema to explain appropriate uses.
- 16:35:41 [ian_]
- IJ: TBL, please make sure your use of "meaning" v. "processing" is shared here.
- 16:36:18 [ian_]
- TBL: Documents that convey the syntactic contraints are useful but limited. And namespace documents should not be constrainted to include only those docs making syntactic constraints.
- 16:36:23 [ian_]
- TB: I can agree to that.
- 16:36:30 [TimBL]
- q+ PC
- 16:36:32 [TimBL]
- q?
- 16:36:38 [Roy]
- q-
- 16:36:42 [ian_]
- Action TB: Rewrite point 14.
- 16:36:45 [TimBL]
- ack TimBL
- 16:37:14 [TimBL]
- useful but insufficient
- 16:37:48 [ian_]
- (In short, RF said that syntactic content at end of URI namespace is useful but insufficient.)
- 16:37:57 [Roy]
- I feel that both Tim's are saying Schemas are useful but insufficient for defining a namespace.
- 16:38:19 [ian_]
- [Meaning v. processing]
- 16:38:58 [Roy]
- what does that have to do with syntactic content at end of URI?
- 16:38:59 [Stuart]
- q?
- 16:39:05 [Stuart]
- q-
- 16:39:38 [ian_]
- TBL waxing: There are a wide set of protocols that connect meaning to protocols. For example, for invoices: you can be given an invoice in many ways. There are a huge number of technical microprotocols that convey the meaning of the invoice in a message. Delivery of a message is very useful (and general). We can separate the definition of delivery with what you do with an invoice once received.
- 16:40:13 [ian_]
- TBL: Protocols would start: "If you have received an invoice, then you can...."
- 16:40:49 [ian_]
- TBL: "Absolute meaning" is meaning in a wide set of contexts. And meaning is shared by anyone using shared protocols.
- 16:41:01 [ian_]
- ....there is a set of contexts where interpretations are all the same.
- 16:41:19 [ian_]
- TBL: I could define a new protocol and say "When you get these bits, it's just like you received by email."
- 16:41:35 [Norm]
- TimBL: what you just said is not the impression that I got from what you said at the f2f. If you write down what you just said, I might agree.
- 16:41:35 [ian_]
- TBL: We may have two concepts: delivery of a message v. publication of a document.
- 16:41:46 [ian_]
- q?
- 16:41:48 [TimBL]
- q?
- 16:41:49 [DanC]
- q+
- 16:42:06 [DanC]
- to make an agenda request (re Tag Wiki http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/pywiki?WebArchitecture)
- 16:42:17 [ian_]
- PC to TB: Does your note consider the possibility that there will be namespaces for which no schema?
- 16:42:30 [DanC]
- "definitive material" <- that's what I've been calling 'schema'. I'm willing to stop using 'schema' for that.
- 16:42:42 [ian_]
- TB: No. I do say that nature of material in namespace document is unpredictable. And may be found in multiple places.
- 16:43:22 [TimBL]
- q+
- 16:44:13 [ian_]
- TB: We should make strong claims that namespace defining materials should exist, and other claims about the nature of that material.
- 16:44:38 [ian_]
- PC: My working group has several namespaces for which there is a human-readable definition that points off to other documents. No schema for it.
- 16:44:58 [ian_]
- PC: The reality is that I will be reluctant if we tell people they have been using namespaces wrong for 2.5 years.
- 16:45:02 [TimBray]
- q+
- 16:45:32 [ian_]
- TBL: I think we agree that the more you make available, the better. I only hear disagreement on whether an indirection is necessary when you only have one document.
- 16:45:35 [Dave]
- Dave has joined #tagmem
- 16:45:46 [TimBL]
- q=TimB
- 16:45:53 [DanC]
- Zakim, what's the scheduled duration of this telcon?
- 16:45:54 [Zakim]
- I don't understand your question, DanC.
- 16:46:08 [Norm]
- What whas it TimBray said, "aaauurggh!?" :-)
- 16:46:09 [TimBL]
- topp of the hour
- 16:46:14 [ian_]
- PC: I don't want us to make the assertion that the only acceptable definiting material is an xml schema.
- 16:46:19 [DanC]
- thx, timbl
- 16:47:06 [ian_]
- TB: I am doubtful about namespaces that only have one defining document. One anomolous exception case: sole defining material is human readable document.
- 16:47:26 [DanC]
- the query function namespace isn't documented by just one document; it's documented by a bit of XHTML that points to the rest of the XML Query spec.
- 16:47:45 [ian_]
- TBL: I have a question -
- 16:47:58 [ian_]
- I have an RDF schema that describes various properties using DAML terms.
- 16:48:03 [TimBray]
- q+
- 16:48:49 [DanC]
- ian_, does TimBL have an action about giving CVS access to folks? is that done?
- 16:48:54 [ian_]
- TBL: There are descriptions in my RDF schema. Because you can put descriptions of each property in the schema, if you put some human-readable documentation that is *not* in the schema, that's not a good idea: don't store data in 2 places.
- 16:49:19 [ian_]
- TBL: You should put human-readable comments in the schema since machines can find them, can be passed on, etc.
- 16:49:23 [ian_]
- DanC: Yes.
- 16:49:36 [ian_]
- s/DanC: Yes/IJ responding to DanC - yes, TimBL is done./
- 16:49:52 [ian_]
- At ftf meeting, people agreed they have enough to get accounts and CVS access.
- 16:50:24 [ian_]
- TB: I think there are two goals:
- 16:50:38 [ian_]
- - In the case of the DAML application TBL cites, obviously goal is to allow machines to do work.
- 16:51:12 [ian_]
- - But if I don't have that software, I need other mechanisms to get human-readable output without DAML software.
- 16:51:25 [ian_]
- ...my ideal document would be that the namespace material explain what processing is expected.
- 16:51:29 [TimBL]
- q?
- 16:51:35 [TimBray]
- q-
- 16:51:37 [TimBray]
- q-
- 16:52:02 [ian_]
- ---------------------------
- 16:52:07 [ian_]
- DC: Do we have shared writing space?
- 16:52:26 [ian_]
- TBL: People can get accounts and write using CVS (under /2001/tag/)
- 16:53:03 [ian_]
- DC: Do we have expectation about using CVS space?
- 16:53:18 [ian_]
- PC: Just haven't done yet.
- 16:53:33 [ian_]
- DC: I put up a wiki for world-writable access
- 16:53:38 [DanC]
- I put up a wiki http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/pywiki?WebArchitecture
- 16:53:43 [ian_]
- TB: I have a concern that this could be time-consuming.
- 16:53:50 [ian_]
- TBL: What's the expectation that the TAG will read and respond.
- 16:53:55 [ian_]
- DC: I offer to summarize it weekly.
- 16:54:22 [ian_]
- PC: I have concerns about opening a second channel.
- 16:54:36 [ian_]
- DC: I haven't settled on www-tag as the only channel.
- 16:55:23 [ian_]
- DC: I'm concerned that we haven't made progress on arch documents. I think outsourcing this is a good idea.
- 16:55:43 [ian_]
- ...also, design issues doesn't have consensus, it would be useful to find out where people don't agree.
- 16:56:00 [ian_]
- PC: I'm concerned about high cost of second channel.
- 16:56:09 [ian_]
- TBL: I suggest putting a label on the wiki as experimental.
- 16:56:49 [ian_]
- PC: For a lot of mail on www-tag, I like to be able to forward email to people I think will be interested. We work that way.
- 16:57:10 [ian_]
- TB: Having said that, I see Dan's point about not knowing where there is not consensus on design issues.
- 16:57:30 [ian_]
- DC: I'm observing that there has been no progress on outline.
- 16:58:05 [TimBray]
- This *group* is the gating body for this document
- 16:58:38 [ian_]
- DC: What if I write in toc directly?
- 16:58:46 [ian_]
- TBL: Don't put something in without notifying people.
- 16:58:56 [ian_]
- DC: What about "I wrote this section; unless you say something it will say."
- 16:59:13 [TimBray]
- I'm turning into a pumpkin at this point... bye
- 16:59:22 [Zakim]
- -TBray
- 17:00:23 [DanC]
- a section http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/pywiki?UsingTheWeb
- 17:00:27 [ian_]
- DanC: I'll put my writeup in CVS if that's what is desired. I'll feel very constrained if I can't write directly to the arch document.
- 17:02:10 [ian_]
- DC: When will we have an architecture document?
- 17:02:12 [ian_]
- TBL: Good question.
- 17:03:02 [ian_]
- IJ Proposes - I can spend my time better on things other than writing meeting summaries.
- 17:03:25 [ian_]
- PC: I would like an arch document for May 2002 AC meeting. I hope we can have a template for our report to the AC then.
- 17:03:33 [ian_]
- TBL: I can see us having a TOC with a number of findings.
- 17:04:16 [TimBL]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/pywiki?UsingTheWeb
- 17:04:31 [ian_]
- DC: I think I can describe web architecture in a page.
- 17:04:46 [ian_]
- PC: The TAG has started bottom-up (addressing people's issues).
- 17:04:59 [ian_]
- PC: If DC is willing to supply top-down material, we should take advantage of this.
- 17:05:12 [DanC]
- would others be interested in top-down in parallel?
- 17:05:27 [Roy]
- I'd prefer editing XML via CVS
- 17:05:54 [Roy]
- with metadata tags to indicate consensus (or lack)
- 17:06:05 [ian_]
- Resolved: IJ will not write meeting summaries.
- 17:06:06 [ian_]
- ---------------
- 17:06:22 [ian_]
- Next meeting: 25 Feb for those who will be available.
- 17:06:24 [ian_]
- ----------------
- 17:06:34 [DanC]
- draft: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/pywiki?UsingTheWeb
- 17:06:47 [ian_]
- DC: This is my first draft of slides for the plenary.