IRC log of tagmem on 2003-02-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:04:17 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
20:04:23 [C3s]
rrsagent, pointer?
20:04:23 [RRSAgent]
20:05:03 [C3s]
zakim, agenda?
20:05:04 [Zakim]
I see nothing on the agenda
20:05:35 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
20:06:26 [Zakim]
20:06:44 [C3s]
wondering where the log got to
20:07:11 [TBray]
Norm chairs; TBray scribes
20:07:25 [TBray]
Feb 17 telcon minutes?
20:07:29 [TBray]
20:07:32 [TBray]
20:07:34 [TBray]
mods to agenda?
20:08:06 [TBray]
20:08:07 [TBray]
20:08:19 [TBray]
3 March mtg canceled, 10 March is next meeting
20:08:37 [TBray]
20:08:40 [DanC]
RRSAgent, pointer?
20:08:40 [RRSAgent]
20:08:46 [TBray]
Meeting planning
20:08:58 [TBray]
Chris can do alternate Budapest dates
20:09:12 [TBray]
put dates in IRC please?
20:09:25 [TBray]
Proposed 22, 23, 24 May (2003/02/17)
20:09:43 [TBray]
suggest alternate May dates of 22 (All day), 23 (Morning), 24 (Morning). DO, TB, PC, NW, IJ can meet those days. CL not sure yet.
20:09:43 [C3s]
20:10:48 [TBray]
DanC: might not be able to make dev-day session
20:11:27 [TBray]
Stuart may have trouble with 24th too
20:11:31 [C3s]
I can juggle my dev day presentation most likely to avoid a clash
20:12:49 [TBray]
No input from TimBL on these dates yet, need to get it
20:13:22 [TBray]
Holding May dates open a little longer...
20:13:26 [TBray]
20:13:38 [TBray]
Nov. in Tokyo?
20:13:42 [TBray]
Proposed 14-15 Nov Japan, Fri-Sat preceding AC meeting
20:13:52 [Roy]
okay by me
20:14:08 [TBray]
Need input from DC & TBL
20:14:12 [TBray]
DanC: not aware of any conflicts
20:14:22 [TBray]
Leave these open, try to close on 10th of March
20:14:27 [timMIT]
timMIT has joined #tagmem
20:14:34 [TBray]
Keio can host us on those dates
20:14:36 [Chris]
we did get confirmation from keio that they could host us
20:14:55 [Norm]
timMIT: are you dialing in?
20:15:30 [timMIT]
yes, i will.
20:16:07 [Zakim]
20:17:37 [DanC]
"May dates of 22 (All day), 23 (Morning), 24 (Morning). DO, TB, PC, NW, IJ can meet those days. CL not sure yet." --
20:18:49 [Chris]
but CL is sure now
20:18:57 [TBray]
Both questions left open till 10 March.
20:19:59 [TBray]
20:20:04 [TBray]
Tech Plenary presentations?
20:20:11 [TBray]
Only NW got his together in time
20:20:32 [TBray]
Suggest review Tue evening at dinner in Boston
20:20:40 [Chris]
My slides are half done but not on server yet
20:20:48 [TBray]
SW: will try to have them done this week
20:20:50 [TBray]
CL: half done
20:21:01 [TBray]
NW: please before end of week so can look at them before Tue
20:21:12 [Chris]
review slides at dinner on Tuesday
20:21:15 [TBray]
20:21:46 [TBray]
Mailing list managemment
20:22:00 [TBray]
SW: has action item outstanding to update policy & publish it
20:22:14 [TBray]
SW: made an interim intervention, which seems to have helped
20:22:45 [Norm]
ack DanC
20:22:46 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to re metadata thread
20:23:40 [TBray]
Dan: post-f2f, we did everything wrong; flameburst following on TimBL's post with TBL on vacaation
20:25:32 [TBray]
SW: wait for my action item?
20:27:59 [Chris]
we can ask for better quoting discipline; three pages of quoted matter without comment is not acceptable
20:29:17 [TBray]
Proposal from someone: ask people not to post more than once per day without reply
20:29:40 [Chris]
prefer leading by example to constraining by rules
20:30:17 [TBray]
TBray: don't like doing by policy, it's an individual judgement
20:30:54 [TBray]
TBray: propose offline intervention with people causing problems
20:31:52 [TBray]
Dan: some people are way out into the territory of wasting everyone's time; perhaps a private email to them?
20:33:45 [TBray]
Norm: SW will finish action item, and when individuals get out of line, it's appropriate for the chair to intervene
20:34:06 [TBray]
DanC: of course this may take days to get to
20:34:21 [TBray]
Norm: of course TAG members could send direct email to chair acting for intervention
20:34:30 [TBray]
20:35:31 [TBray]
20:35:45 [TBray]
new issue? Site metadata hook
20:35:46 [Norm]
Ian is on vacation today
20:36:20 [Roy]
20:36:53 [TBray]
with only 3 thiings, not too bad a prob, but this is a slippery slope
20:36:56 [TBray]
20:36:56 [Chris]
reserved urls /robots.txt, /w3c/p3p, /favico
20:37:05 [Roy]
20:37:39 [TBray]
TBL reviews points in his posting referenced above
20:37:47 [Chris]
guys, stop putting technical discussion in /me
20:39:46 [Norm]
ack TBray
20:39:48 [Chris]
is the question : given a uri x, how to get metadata about x?
20:40:00 [Chris]
or is it given a site s, get metadata?
20:40:22 [timMIT]
q+ to define site in the context of this issue proposal only
20:40:47 [Chris]
q+ to talk about subsites, tenants, server sharing etc
20:41:56 [Norm]
ack roy
20:42:06 [TBray]
TBray: 1. support adopting the issue
20:42:26 [Chris]
one persons data is another persons metadata
20:42:37 [timMIT]
HTTP DNA domain metadata could well include delegation information giving actual notional "sites"
20:42:38 [TBray]
TBray 2. web arch currently doesn't have notion of a "site" and to the extent it does it's coupled to host (e.g. robots.tx); so this is new but might be good
20:42:54 [TBray]
TBray: recent proposal along same lines from (I think) Roger Costello
20:43:04 [TBray]
TBray: TBL said HTTP "tag" meant header
20:43:12 [TBray]
Roy: robots.txt isn't necessarily a file
20:43:22 [Norm]
20:43:25 [TBray]
Roy: this isn't metadata it's just data about a resource
20:43:28 [Chris]
any resource is not necessarily a file
20:43:29 [Norm]
ack timMIT
20:43:31 [Zakim]
timMIT, you wanted to define site in the context of this issue proposal only
20:43:36 [Roy]
no, data about a site
20:43:40 [Roy]
not a resource
20:43:51 [Chris]
20:43:56 [TBray]
Roy: we need to manage this whole area of per-site names
20:44:16 [Chris]
there is no way to give a URI of a site as opposed to a URI for a welcome page for it
20:44:41 [Chris]
hmm... sites are significant resources, no? so they should have URIs.....
20:44:51 [Roy]
20:45:01 [TBray]
TBL on lack of distinction between data/metadata
20:45:12 [TBray]
TBL on whole family of interesting metadata you could have about a site
20:45:22 [Norm]
20:45:27 [TBray]
TBL: need a hook to hang this stuff
20:45:28 [Norm]
ack chris
20:45:29 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to talk about subsites, tenants, server sharing etc
20:45:34 [Roy]
20:45:36 [TBray]
No, "/" isn't the site it's the server, they're not the same things
20:46:42 [timMIT]
Server isn't a perfect name eitehr ... tends to be a computer.
20:46:48 [TBray]
Chris: echoing problem of site/server disconnect, bad architecture to require everyone to write one file
20:47:07 [TBray]
Chris: if a Site is an important thing, it should have a URI; right now there's no such thing
20:47:27 [TBray]
Chris: per our axiomms
20:48:08 [TBray]
Roy: When robots.txt was invented.. (Chris: everyone had their own server) .. the idea was to knock politely on some part of a naming authority's domain
20:48:17 [TBray]
Roy: haven't seen a proposal yet with equivalent semantics
20:48:19 [TBray]
20:48:27 [Norm]
ack roy
20:48:38 [Chris]
it has had excellent expressive power at ultra low implementation cost
20:48:39 [timMIT]
q+ to explain to roy where this fits in
20:49:04 [Norm]
ack TBray
20:50:11 [Norm]
ack timMIT
20:50:13 [Zakim]
timMIT, you wanted to explain to roy where this fits in
20:50:19 [TBray]
TBray: wants to introduce a new notion called "site" a collection of resources (on one server?)
20:50:41 [TBray]
TBray: "Site" has a URI, which could be provided in an HTTP header and an HTML <link>
20:50:49 [TBray]
TBray: could contain robotrs policies, RSS feed, all sorts of stuff
20:51:01 [Norm]
I can't see how you're going to give site a URI independent of the pages on the site...
20:51:33 [TBray]
Roy/TBL: Problem because many sites consider the root URI to be revenue-significant and don't want robots to go there
20:51:51 [timMIT]
A head would work
20:51:55 [TBray]
Roy: but likes TBL's idea
20:52:01 [timMIT]
a HEAD would work.
20:52:11 [TBray]
Roy: wants the issue to be tightly circumscribed
20:52:38 [TBray]
Roy: i.e. we're just solving /robots.txt (but that cat's out of the bag) or more generally, algorithm for determining appropriate metadata for a site
20:52:51 [TBray]
TBL: but doesn't like metadata/data distinction
20:53:06 [TBray]
TBL: how would we design robots.txt if we were doing it now or ina couple years
20:53:56 [TBray]
Bray: propose we accept SiteData-NN
20:53:58 [timMIT]
20:54:06 [TBray]
Chris: does that include defining notion of a site?
20:54:08 [TBray]
Bray: yes
20:54:15 [TBray]
Roy: rather empower authors to define their own site
20:54:27 [TBray]
Roy: rather than define for them what it is
20:54:32 [Chris]
q+ to clarify
20:54:45 [Norm]
ack DanC
20:54:46 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to support the issue as proposed in Proposed issue: site metadata hook
20:54:48 [Norm]
ack Chris
20:54:49 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to clarify
20:55:07 [Stuart]
Just found "What if I can't make a /robots.txt file?" at
20:55:14 [TBray]
Chris just wants to make sure we don't leave undefined terms like "site" hanging
20:55:23 [TBray]
Roy: can we define it reflectively
20:55:24 [Norm]
20:55:28 [TBray]
TBray doesn't understand Roy
20:55:33 [Roy]
20:55:34 [TBray]
Norm: any objection?
20:55:45 [TBray]
Resolved: accept issue
20:55:53 [TBray]
Chris: owner?
20:55:59 [Roy]
all resources on "site" point to same "site URI"
20:56:08 [TBray]
what roy said
20:56:49 [TBray]
Issue owner: TBL
20:57:04 [TBray]
Action item: proposal to close it
20:57:12 [TBray]
TBL: not till after discussion
20:57:26 [Stuart]
20:57:30 [TBray]
20:57:43 [Norm]
ack Stuart
20:58:00 [Roy]
next number is 36
20:58:01 [TBray]
I think this is SiteData-36
20:59:06 [Norm]
20:59:10 [Norm]
ack tbray
20:59:56 [TBray]
Action: TBL to summarize discussion & recast issue
21:00:01 [TBray]
Action: TBray to post a strawman proposal
21:00:09 [TBray]
Actions accepted
21:00:12 [TBray]
21:01:26 [TBray]
Paul: issue raised in respect to WSDL
21:01:42 [TBray]
In regards their email Feb. 3rd
21:02:00 [TBray]
This is regards to our issue #6
21:02:12 [TBray]
Dan; Still have an outstanding action
21:02:17 [DanC]
4. rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 affects WSDL too (score: 117) (2,068 bytes)
21:02:17 [DanC]
Author: Dan Connolly <>, Date: 25 Nov 2002 12:26:15 -0600 List: Public/www-tag
21:02:23 [DanC];list=www-tag
21:03:06 [TBray]
Paul: let's make sure this gets on our March 10 agenda
21:03:19 [TBray]
21:04:37 [TBray]
Deeplinking-25: Done
21:04:41 [TBray]
21:06:56 [Norm]
ack DanC
21:07:11 [TBray]
21:07:29 [TBray]
Bray: proposal:
21:07:41 [TBray]
Very minimal, see exegesis in my covering email
21:07:51 [TBray]
Dan: this isn't XHTML, they own the syntax (Chris doesn't agree)
21:07:52 [Norm]
21:08:00 [Norm]
ack norm
21:08:13 [TBray]
Dan: would prefer a custom XML or RDF language, but not enough to object; would abstain
21:08:42 [TBray]
Norm: you really think that HTML-WG has to approve any attributes in any namespaces
21:08:45 [TBray]
Dan: yes
21:08:52 [TBray]
Chris: flabbergasted
21:08:59 [Norm]
I'm a bit flabbergasted as well
21:09:05 [TBray]
Dan: doesn't like it but thinks that's the way it is
21:09:19 [Chris]
Actually to clarify - they DO own the syntax, no argument; the syntax of the HTML namespace. Attributes in other namespaces they do not own and this was what I objected to in Dan's statement
21:09:38 [TBray]
Bray: what about modularization
21:09:43 [TBray]
Dan: then you have to change the DOCTYPE
21:09:49 [TBray]
Chris: if you want it to be valid
21:10:00 [Chris]
if you want it to be valid you would need to change the doctype and write a driver dtsd for it etc
21:10:03 [TBray]
Bray: Granted
21:10:40 [Chris]
q+ to correct TimB
21:10:48 [DanC]
chris, there aren't any XHTML documents that aren't valid XML, are there?
21:10:53 [Norm]
ack chris
21:10:54 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to correct TimB
21:11:05 [TBray]
Bray: not sure what the correct term is
21:11:13 [TBray]
Chris: It's an XHTML-family doc, which is a defined term in the XHTML spec
21:11:29 [TBray]
Bray: in technical terms, it's XHTML + 2 attributes, which is easy to understand and implement
21:11:38 [timMIT]
q+ to express the concern that teh semantics are notwell defined in rddl
21:11:40 [timMIT]
21:12:09 [TBray]
Norm: want to change proposal?
21:12:11 [TBray]
Bray: no
21:12:18 [Stuart]
21:12:20 [TBray]
Dan: does proposal want to change DOCTYPE
21:12:23 [Norm]
ack timMIT
21:12:24 [Zakim]
timMIT, you wanted to express the concern that teh semantics are notwell defined in rddl
21:12:25 [TBray]
Bray: silent on that subject
21:12:30 [TBray]
Paul: we're open to suggestions
21:12:46 [Chris]
got it
21:12:47 [Chris]
21:13:08 [TBray]
TBL: covering letter said RDF wouldn't give semweb people what they wanted; ?
21:13:45 [DanC]
thx, chris. that's new to me. but it does involve changing the doctype... "A conforming XHTML family document is a valid instance"
21:13:47 [TBray]
TBL: suggests that RDDL semantics be given in RDF terms, as classes & properties
21:15:16 [Norm]
21:15:25 [timMIT]
1. The cover note suggets the RDDL document does not meet its SWeb goals. In what way?
21:17:12 [TBray]
Bray: Various RDF instantiations either fail to capture the linkage to the namespace as a resource, or are really complex
21:17:34 [TBray]
Bray: prepared to believe that RDF-defined semantics are a agood idea, who's going to write it down?
21:17:46 [TBray]
Dan: I would, but I wouldn't use XHTML, I'd use RDf anyhow
21:18:08 [Norm]
21:18:13 [TBray]
TBL: if introducing a thing called "nature", if you make it an RDF Class then that explains it to a lot of people and you don't need to say anything more
21:18:14 [Norm]
21:18:18 [Norm]
q+ PaulC
21:18:27 [Norm]
ack Norm
21:18:37 [TBray]
q+ to say that I don't know what an RDF class is
21:18:51 [TBray]
Norm: proposal could be left alone and people who wanted to do the RDF definition could do so
21:18:59 [Norm]
ack PaulC
21:19:00 [TBray]
TBL: no, interoperability suffers
21:19:17 [TBray]
Paul: pushing back on Dan's thesis that we should use RDF
21:19:24 [TBray]
Paul: we agreed that NS doc should be human readable
21:19:41 [TBray]
Paul: and there were other issues with regards to using RDF in XML
21:20:11 [TBray]
Dan: RDF can be as human-readable as you like
21:20:16 [TBray]
Dan: consumer is a machine not a human
21:20:21 [TBray]
Paul: disagrees strongly
21:20:40 [TBray]
Paul: we have two objectives, hard to achieve both
21:20:52 [Norm]
21:20:56 [Norm]
ack tbray
21:20:57 [Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to say that I don't know what an RDF class is
21:22:33 [TBray]
TBray: can we publish a XSLT or other code that would process a minimal-RDDL and emit the RDF that you'd like to see?
21:22:51 [TBray]
Chris: user-agents, given XML & a stylesheet, typically don't work
21:23:05 [timMIT]
q+ to wade into this one
21:23:05 [Norm]
ack danc
21:23:07 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask for a use case to focus on
21:23:11 [Norm]
q+ PaulC
21:25:55 [TBray]
Bray: Consider WordML; human perl programmer could dereference namespace name to figure it out
21:26:47 [DanC]
ok, thanks for the use case.
21:26:54 [Norm]
ack timMIT
21:26:56 [Zakim]
timMIT, you wanted to wade into this one
21:26:58 [TBray]
Bray: Also the desperate perl hacker could dispatch to code via RDDL to generate postscript etc
21:27:12 [TBray]
Dan: but that's hard, subtle, hard to believe, given the experience of MIME dispatching
21:27:35 [TBray]
TBL: agree that it's usable to have both;
21:27:49 [DanC]
would people please stop saying "we've agreed to X"? I'm quite confident we have resolved *nothing* anywhere near this issue.
21:27:53 [TBray]
TBL: consider high-volume applicatios, apps hitting this thousands of times a second, the architecture has to support this
21:28:27 [Norm]
I'm not sure I agree it's infrequent...
21:28:31 [TBray]
TBL: use case only appeals to fairly infrequent access
21:29:38 [TBray]
TBL: If it doesn't have well-defined semantics people won't use it. Dan & I would both put RDF there.
21:29:49 [Norm]
ack paulc
21:30:11 [Roy]
scenario: human wants info about namespace (I don't care about automation here)
21:30:24 [timMIT]
21:30:37 [TBray]
Paul: perplexed how to handle at technical plenary, this has been going on for a long time and he hasn't seen statements from TBL, DC in public that non-RDF was unacceptable
21:30:43 [Chris]
wondering about proposing reserved paths nsURI/rdf/ and nsURI/schema and so forth
21:31:13 [TBray]
Dan: not saying "has to be RDF" - he's saying he would prefer RDF & would abstain on this proposal
21:33:02 [timMIT]
I don't know what Paul meant by "RDDL-based" of all these various proposals for RDDL
21:35:21 [TBray]
... discussion of technial minutiae of how to make it valid, with DOCTYPE wrangling and so on ...
21:35:37 [Zakim]
21:35:38 [Zakim]
21:35:39 [Zakim]
21:35:40 [Roy]
Roy has left #tagmem
21:35:42 [Zakim]
21:35:42 [Zakim]
21:35:43 [Zakim]
21:35:52 [Zakim]
21:35:53 [Zakim]
21:35:54 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has ended
21:36:07 [Chris]
rrsagent, pointer?
21:36:07 [RRSAgent]
21:36:20 [Chris]
rrsagent, stop