IRC log of tagmem on 2003-07-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:56:32 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:57:18 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
18:57:19 [Zakim]
+Chris
18:58:34 [Zakim]
+??P0
18:59:04 [Zakim]
+??P1
18:59:09 [Ian]
Ian has joined #tagmem
18:59:11 [TBray]
TBray has joined #tagmem
18:59:21 [Zakim]
+Norm
18:59:44 [Zakim]
+TimBL
18:59:56 [Zakim]
+??P2
18:59:57 [Zakim]
-Norm
19:00:27 [Zakim]
+Norm
19:00:39 [Zakim]
-Norm
19:00:43 [Ian]
zakim, call Ian-BOS
19:00:43 [Zakim]
ok, Ian; the call is being made
19:00:44 [Zakim]
+Ian
19:01:02 [Zakim]
+Norm
19:01:32 [Zakim]
-Norm
19:01:33 [Chris]
zakim, mute me
19:01:33 [Zakim]
Chris should now be muted
19:01:38 [Chris]
is that better?
19:01:52 [Chris]
sometimes there is echo if zakim dials me
19:02:26 [Zakim]
+Norm
19:03:10 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
19:03:10 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Chris (muted), ??P0, ??P1, TimBL, ??P2, Ian, Norm
19:03:11 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TBray, Ian, RRSAgent, DanC_g, Zakim, Norm, Chris, timbl
19:03:31 [Norm]
zakim, ??P0 is Paul
19:03:31 [Zakim]
+Paul; got it
19:03:35 [Norm]
zakim, ??P1 is PatHayes
19:03:35 [Zakim]
+PatHayes; got it
19:03:36 [Zakim]
+DOrchard
19:03:41 [Norm]
zakim, ??P2 is TBray
19:03:41 [Zakim]
+TBray; got it
19:03:47 [Norm]
zakim, who's here?
19:03:47 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Chris (muted), Paul, PatHayes, TimBL, TBray, Ian, Norm, DOrchard
19:03:49 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TBray, Ian, RRSAgent, DanC_g, Zakim, Norm, Chris, timbl
19:04:03 [Ian]
zakim, who's here?
19:04:03 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Chris (muted), Paul, PatHayes, TimBL, TBray, Ian, Norm, DOrchard
19:04:05 [Zakim]
On IRC I see TBray, Ian, RRSAgent, DanC_g, Zakim, Norm, Chris, timbl
19:04:13 [Ian]
Regrets: SW
19:04:59 [Zakim]
+DanC
19:05:42 [Ian]
Scribe: IJ
19:05:43 [Ian]
Chair: NW
19:05:47 [Ian]
Welcome Pat Hayes!
19:06:03 [Ian]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2003/07/28-tag.html
19:06:21 [DanC_g]
regrets 4 Aug
19:06:23 [Ian]
Next meeting: 4 Aug?
19:06:36 [Ian]
DO: Regrets
19:06:40 [Ian]
q+
19:07:00 [Ian]
FTF meeting in October?
19:07:13 [Ian]
Proposal: Meet 6-7 Oct in Bristol
19:07:16 [DanC_g]
there were 2 actions for ftf offers, no?
19:07:34 [Chris]
yes, we should
19:08:03 [Ian]
Question: Should we meet ftf in October?
19:08:07 [Norm]
DanC_g: yes, but mine and stuarts got mangled together. his is the only one left on the table
19:08:14 [DanC_g]
bummer
19:08:15 [Ian]
TBL: It would be expensive to me to go to a ftf.
19:08:58 [Ian]
TBL: What about another extended remote meeting?
19:09:06 [Ian]
DO: I'd prefer to meet ftf, but can live with long virtual meeting.
19:09:14 [Ian]
TBray: I think long remote meeting was painful but worked.
19:09:18 [Ian]
CL: I'd prefer to meet ftf.
19:09:22 [Ian]
PC: I prefer ftf.
19:09:28 [Ian]
IJ: I can do either.
19:09:46 [Chris]
we can get a lot done in two days of concentrated effort
19:10:28 [Ian]
PC: I'm skeptical that we will be able to reach agreement on text regarding extensibility.
19:10:38 [Ian]
PC: Like DO, I think we should get doc to last call before Nov 2003 AC meeting.
19:11:23 [Ian]
DC: I can't comfortably make a ftf meeting.
19:11:37 [Ian]
NW: I think we are more likely to get to last call this year if we have an Oct ftf meeting.
19:11:39 [TBray]
If we decide to do it, I'll go
19:11:52 [DanC_g]
Chris seems to be the source of an echo
19:13:01 [Ian]
DO: Should a subset meet?
19:13:03 [DanC_g]
Chris, pls mute yourself or something
19:13:18 [Zakim]
-Chris
19:13:36 [Ian]
TBray: North America would reduce the pain for me (even if unfair, which I recognize).
19:13:56 [Zakim]
+ +1.334.933.aaaa
19:14:13 [Chris]
yes, uits unfair
19:15:10 [Ian]
NW: As it stands now, if we assume that SW is willing to host, it appears we have 5-6 people willing to meet in Bristol. TBL/DC are tentative no's. RF is unknown.
19:15:15 [TBray]
yes, seems better chris
19:15:25 [Ian]
NW: It would seem that there is tentative consensus to meet in Bristol.
19:15:28 [Ian]
TBL: What about a video link?
19:15:40 [Ian]
TBL: E.g., between a UK site and an east coast site.
19:15:52 [Ian]
Ian has left #tagmem
19:16:02 [Ian]
Ian has joined #tagmem
19:16:39 [Norm]
proposal is a f2f with a block of time for telcon/vidcon
19:16:54 [Ian]
CL: As long as there is good chairing two remote pieces, allow remote call-in for a few hours per day.
19:17:31 [TBray]
+1
19:17:34 [Ian]
NW Proposes: (1) ftf meeting in Bristol (2) count on video/telephone remote participation for important issues to those individuals who cannot attend.
19:17:47 [Chris]
prefer a three day
19:17:50 [Ian]
PC: Why meet on Monday/Tuesday?
19:18:07 [Ian]
NW: I did not mean to constrain to 2 days. There are hard constraints to return before end of week.
19:18:13 [Ian]
NW: We can meet 3 days.
19:18:16 [Ian]
CL: 3 days ok for me.
19:18:38 [Ian]
CL: I can still fly home in evening (direct Bristol -> Nice) so easy for me.
19:18:54 [Ian]
TBL: Travel on Sunday not family-friendly.
19:19:04 [Ian]
PC, DO: We were planning to give up Sunday.
19:19:14 [Chris]
norm, I suggest cutting this discussion at now+5 minutes
19:19:16 [Ian]
PC: Next weekend is even more important (Canada Thanksgiving, eh)
19:19:25 [Chris]
and moving on to the technical material
19:19:33 [Chris]
and stop boring our guest ;-)
19:19:43 [Ian]
Proposed: Meet in Bristol M-W with remote participation.
19:20:10 [Ian]
DC: Please accept my regrets (not sure I can be there in any form).
19:20:39 [Ian]
Resolved: Meet in Bristol M-W (6-8 Oct 2003) with remote participation.
19:20:49 [Ian]
TBL: Please maximize remote participation times.
19:21:06 [Ian]
NW: Depends on SW's facilities somewhat.
19:21:16 [Ian]
===
19:21:17 [Ian]
q?
19:21:20 [Ian]
q-
19:21:35 [Ian]
For next week: Review ftf minutes
19:21:42 [Ian]
http://www.w3.org/2003/07/21-tag-summary.html
19:21:43 [Chris]
we could start late (10) and finish late (7, at least) to make remote participation from westwards folsk easier
19:21:45 [Ian]
---
19:21:46 [DanC_g]
I looked at the draft minutes; they're *not* OK as is. Sorry I haven't found time to send details
19:21:51 [TBray]
q+
19:22:26 [Ian]
NW: For technical agenda, we can either talk about (1) httpRange-14 or (2) define resource and representation.
19:23:07 [Ian]
DO: My proxy vote goes to TB.
19:23:13 [Norm]
q?
19:23:14 [Chris]
q?
19:23:15 [DanC_g]
ack tbray
19:24:07 [timbl]
q+ to mention that Roy had views on this and to proceede without him is a shame.
19:24:33 [Ian]
TBray: Procedural point: If we write up text along the lines we agreed to at the ftf meeting (information resource mentioned), I think several of us can live with that compromise.
19:24:46 [Ian]
TBray: We can address the issue(s) in detail in a subsequent version of the arch doc.
19:24:46 [DanC_g]
ack danc
19:24:46 [Zakim]
DanC_g, you wanted to note some input from Roy
19:24:47 [Norm]
ack DanC_g
19:24:57 [Zakim]
-DOrchard
19:25:15 [Chris]
I agree that information resource really helps as a concept
19:25:16 [Ian]
DC: On "information resources": Roy said there was no such thing. We did not *decide* to make the distinction at the meeting.
19:25:16 [Norm]
q?
19:25:26 [Ian]
DC: I think RF is on the record as saying we should not make the distinction.
19:25:41 [Norm]
ack timbl
19:25:41 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to mention that Roy had views on this and to proceede without him is a shame.
19:25:41 [DanC_g]
ack timbl
19:25:45 [Ian]
TBL: Right, I think RF opposed the notion of information resource.
19:26:29 [TBray]
q+
19:27:01 [Ian]
TBL: RF's absence today is a shame. We invited Pat Hayes (PH) to discuss the use of terms. I think RF might agree that in practice there are information resources, but he would not like to make the distinction in the model.
19:27:45 [TBray]
q=
19:27:48 [TBray]
q=
19:27:51 [TBray]
q=
19:27:54 [Ian]
PH: Please explain RF's position. Is the position that there is no such thing as an information resource, or that the distinction is not useful?
19:27:55 [TBray]
q+
19:27:58 [DanC_g]
ack tbray
19:28:19 [Ian]
TBray: I think I can convey RF's position. RF and I both observe that the existing deployed base of software has no opinion about what the nature of a resource is.
19:28:38 [Ian]
TBray: Deployed software doesn't care whether the resource is a mountain or a picture of a mountain.
19:28:52 [Ian]
TBray: The distinction has nothing to do with respresentational state transfer.
19:29:06 [Ian]
TBray: While I agree with him technically, I am aware of the angst caused by the issue.
19:29:47 [Ian]
DC: In particular, RF has pointing out that http URIs (without #fragid) exist in practice that refer to robots (not information resources).
19:29:52 [TBray]
q+
19:30:07 [Ian]
TBray: Another example is XML namespace URIs that begin with http.
19:30:16 [DanC_g]
... and have no #s
19:30:46 [Ian]
PH: Seems like XML Namespace URIs are a good example of URIs that (can) have nothing at the end. It's hard to get ahold of the namespace. You get documents back saying "I am a namespace."
19:31:06 [timbl]
q+ to explain NS
19:31:27 [Ian]
PC: Don't forget use of Namespace URIs as declared without making available any representations.
19:31:51 [timbl]
q+ also to menation Roy's model of all the bits as being representatation of the robot.
19:32:16 [Ian]
PH: Seems frequent to have URIs without representations available; no need to make this illegal.
19:32:47 [timbl]
q+ to also mention Roy's model of all the bits as being representatation of the robot.
19:33:00 [Ian]
PH: When you get persnickety about nature of resource, you continue to find ambiguities (e.g., resource at given moment in time v. resource at any moment time).
19:33:03 [DanC_g]
ack tbray
19:33:04 [Norm]
ack TBray
19:33:28 [Ian]
TBray: Suppose we proceed in document by making distinction between information resource and "other types" of resources.
19:33:44 [Ian]
TBray: TBL has said that ambiguous denotation with URIs is dangerous to sem web.
19:34:06 [Ian]
TBray: What would need to be said in arch doc to make building sem web sanely possible?
19:34:38 [Ian]
PH: What bothers me is that there is the axiom on the current draft: The claim that a URI must *identify* a unique resource.
19:34:44 [Ian]
TBray: What do you mean by "unique"?
19:35:00 [Ian]
PH: If the axiom could be weakened or removed, a lot of these problems would just go away.
19:35:19 [Chris]
q+ tbray to ask in what sense it is unique
19:35:37 [Ian]
TBL: There's a philosophical debate issue (denotations and interpretations).
19:35:37 [TBray]
q+ to ask where the assertion Pat talks about is made
19:35:56 [Ian]
TBL: But there are practical problems when someone wants to use a URI to refer to a page and also to a person.
19:36:03 [Ian]
TBL: These people haven't been playing with the semantic web.
19:36:07 [DanC_g]
ack timbl
19:36:07 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to explain NS and to also mention Roy's model of all the bits as being representatation of the robot.
19:37:27 [Ian]
TBL: There's a philosophy question (how do we determine we mean the same thing when using URIs). But there's another thing (hair-splitting) about whether we mean a photo or a photo including its frame. I'm worried about neither of these (for the moment). I am concerned when people are expressly referring to two things with the same URI.
19:37:29 [Norm]
q+ to ask how to distinguish between the nits and the real distinctions
19:37:40 [Ian]
PH: For the purposes of today's discussion, I agree with TBL.
19:37:51 [Ian]
(PH: But I don't actually agree with TBL)
19:38:10 [Ian]
PH: I agree that the current technology doesn't care what the nature of the resources is.
19:38:14 [timbl]
Pat: Current technology not on teh sem web doesn't give a rat what these resources really are.
19:38:25 [Norm]
ack tbray
19:38:25 [Zakim]
tbray, you wanted to ask in what sense it is unique and to ask where the assertion Pat talks about is made
19:38:29 [Ian]
PH: The problem is what's said in the arch doc. The document says important about resources that matter.
19:38:31 [Norm]
ack also
19:38:31 [Zakim]
also, you wanted to menation Roy's model of all the bits as being representatation of the robot.
19:38:34 [Ian]
TBray: What language is bothering you.
19:38:49 [Ian]
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/
19:39:13 [Ian]
2. Identification and Resources
19:39:23 [Ian]
"Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI), defined by "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax" [URI], are central to Web Architecture. Parties who wish to communicate about something will establish a shared vocabulary, i.e. a shared set of bindings between identifiers and things. This shared vocabulary has a tangible value: it reduces the cost of communication. The ability to use common identifiers across communities is what motivates glob
19:39:23 [Ian]
al naming in Web Architecture."
19:39:58 [Ian]
[TB reads second para as well]
19:40:10 [Norm]
q?
19:40:16 [DanC_g]
(is the relevant draft cited from the agenda?)
19:40:30 [Norm]
no, my bad
19:41:02 [Ian]
PH: I don't establish a link to a galaxy by using a URI.
19:41:07 [Ian]
PH: Let's define "link"
19:41:08 [Ian]
q?
19:41:14 [Chris]
link ix a context of use of uris
19:41:26 [Norm]
ack Norm
19:41:26 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to ask how to distinguish between the nits and the real distinctions
19:41:27 [timbl]
q+ to mention confusion betweb Rs and IRs
19:41:28 [Norm]
norm agrees to pass
19:41:34 [Norm]
ack pathayes
19:41:47 [Ian]
PH: URI-makes-link if we think about resources as being networked resources.
19:41:50 [Chris]
q+ to point out links are only found in resource representations
19:42:06 [Ian]
TBray: I'm sorry, I just don't see the problem.
19:42:11 [TBray]
q+
19:42:45 [Ian]
PH: How do you link from an imaginary entity to something 100s of 1000s of light years away.
19:42:51 [Norm]
ack timbl
19:42:51 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to mention confusion betweb Rs and IRs
19:42:51 [Ian]
PH: You can link the representations, but not the things.
19:42:58 [Chris]
PH just said what I was quesd up to say!!
19:43:02 [TBray]
q-
19:43:12 [Norm]
ack chris
19:43:12 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to point out links are only found in resource representations
19:43:43 [Ian]
DC: The doc says "When a REPRESENTATION of one resource..."
19:43:57 [Ian]
q?
19:44:09 [Ian]
CL: You can only have a link from a representation.
19:44:15 [Ian]
CL: The link is to a resource, not a representation.
19:44:26 [Ian]
(CL: Modulo fragid nonsense.)
19:44:48 [Ian]
CL: One knows about links by fetching representations and determining that there's a link.
19:45:15 [Ian]
CL: A link IS formed between resources; the link is accomplished via representations.
19:45:39 [Chris]
a link IS NOT* fomed merely by the existence of two resources
19:45:59 [Chris]
a link has to be explicitly established, in a representation
19:46:06 [Chris]
not all representations have links
19:46:10 [Ian]
PH: "shared set of bindings". Can we assume that looking at this from a sem web that "parties" can be software agents?
19:46:11 [Ian]
DC: Yes.
19:46:24 [Ian]
PH: So how do software agents establish a shared vocabulary?
19:46:35 [Chris]
eg I can have an image in SVG that has links, and a JPEG image that does not
19:46:40 [Ian]
DC: The document doesn't say that they "have to", we just observe that they do.
19:46:47 [Chris]
and those could be two representations of the same resource
19:46:53 [Ian]
TBL: Software agents pick up knowledge by being written by humans.
19:46:59 [timbl]
http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/ucyh.jpg "The Astronomer"
19:47:09 [Ian]
TBray: It's safe to assume (by software agents) that same URI refers to same thing.
19:47:22 [Ian]
DC: Both names and what they refer to is bootstrapped.
19:47:33 [Ian]
PH: There's no way to communicate "the thing". You can only refer to it with symbols.
19:47:40 [Ian]
DC: That's exactly what we do.
19:48:00 [Ian]
PH: It works between people in a room because they all see the dog and observe understanding.
19:48:12 [Ian]
TBray: Why doesn't it work on the Web.
19:48:27 [TBray]
q+
19:48:29 [Ian]
PH: Vocab is defined in terms of bindings, not shared URIs. I don't think that's true.
19:48:31 [timbl]
q+
19:48:53 [Ian]
PH: Software can do a lot without knowing bindings. It doesn't matter in some cases whether there is even a binding.
19:49:06 [Ian]
PH: Only agreement is the agreement to use URIs in the same way (in a given context).
19:49:08 [Norm]
ack tbray
19:49:29 [Ian]
TBray: I agree with PH here - I think the discussion of "shared set of bindings" is gratuitous; we never actually define the bindings.
19:49:43 [Ian]
TBray: We could delete that phrase; we don't need to talk about bindings at this point in the doc.
19:50:09 [Ian]
DC: But names refer to something. There is tangible value when our views of binding are the same.
19:50:18 [Norm]
ack timbl
19:50:19 [DanC_g]
"a shared set of identifiers on whose meanings they agree"
19:50:21 [DanC_g]
I like that
19:50:38 [TBray]
+1
19:51:38 [Chris]
I observe that in real life, subsets of communities can agree on the meaning of a given term, but entire communities rarely ever do. hence schools of thought, different factions, political parties, and so on. a canonical set of definitions only goes so far
19:51:43 [Ian]
TBL to PH: On this phone call, we say "Pat's on the queue." Pat is animate, the queue is virtual. But there's no confusion about these things. We've exchanged a huge amount of information, and it would be inconceivable to be confused about what "Pat" means. A vast number of URIs will work that way on the semantic web.
19:51:55 [Ian]
TBL: E.g., those published by the OWL WG.
19:52:41 [Ian]
[TBL on cost in time of continuing to debate fine points.]
19:52:55 [Norm]
ack DanC_g
19:52:55 [Zakim]
DanC_g, you wanted to reiterate pat's proposal
19:52:59 [timbl]
q+
19:52:59 [Ian]
[PH proposal: "establish a shared set of identifiers on whose meanings they agree."]
19:53:25 [Ian]
PC: Do we define "identifiers"?
19:53:33 [Ian]
TBray: I don't think we need to define "identifiers"
19:53:38 [Ian]
DC: It's clear that we mean URIs.
19:54:29 [timbl]
http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/ucy.jpg
19:54:35 [Ian]
Proposed: s/a shared set of bindings between identifiers and things/a shared set of identifiers on whose meanings they agree
19:54:58 [Ian]
NW: If we adopt this, does this help clarify what we mean by resources/respresentations?
19:55:29 [Ian]
Resolved: In section 2, s/a shared set of bindings between identifiers and things/a shared set of identifiers on whose meanings they agree
19:55:32 [Ian]
---
19:56:07 [TBray]
oops, Zakim is confused
19:56:08 [TBray]
q-
19:56:14 [TBray]
q+ Pat
19:56:32 [Norm]
ack timbl
19:57:31 [Ian]
[Second issue is on information resources.]
19:57:37 [Ian]
ack Pat
19:57:43 [Ian]
q+ Pat
19:57:53 [Ian]
ack Pat
19:58:06 [Ian]
PH: "The networked information system is built of linked resources, and the large-scale effect is a shared information space. The value of the Web grows exponentially as a function of the number of linked resources (the "network effect")."
19:58:09 [Ian]
PH: Whoa.
19:58:23 [Ian]
PH: This seems to be talking about information resources.
19:58:24 [Ian]
DC: I agree.
19:58:27 [Ian]
TBray: I don't,.
19:58:53 [Norm]
q+
19:59:02 [Ian]
TBL: In my terminology, you have a picture/form of a robot; those are information-bearing objects.
19:59:09 [Ian]
TBray: Software can't tell the difference.
19:59:13 [Ian]
TBL: My software can.
20:00:03 [Ian]
[On meaning of "link"]
20:00:36 [timbl]
q+ to discuss what <http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/ucy.jpg> is.
20:00:40 [Norm]
akc norm
20:00:42 [Norm]
ack norm
20:02:14 [Norm]
Stupid is not illegal.
20:02:26 [Norm]
q?
20:02:37 [TBray]
q+ to say that the information system includes only those things for which people publish URIs, and they're only good citizens if they make representations available
20:02:40 [DanC_g]
but harmful can be, and perhaps should be, promoted to counter-to-web-architecture
20:02:48 [timbl]
q+ paul
20:02:52 [Norm]
ack timbl
20:02:52 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to discuss what <http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~roy/vermeer/ucy.jpg> is.
20:03:25 [Norm]
q+ paul
20:04:14 [Ian]
Ian has joined #tagmem
20:04:20 [Ian_]
Ian_ has joined #tagmem
20:04:55 [Ian_]
zakim, drop Ian
20:04:55 [Zakim]
Ian is being disconnected
20:04:56 [Zakim]
-Ian
20:04:57 [Ian_]
zakim, call Ian-BOS
20:04:57 [Zakim]
ok, Ian_; the call is being made
20:04:58 [Zakim]
+Ian
20:05:25 [Ian_]
TBL: Web works because we have expectations about the same content.
20:05:37 [Ian_]
NW: What if you do a GET on a URI and get back an RDF representation that says "That URI refers to a person."
20:05:47 [DanC_g]
I think this "expectation of same content" issue is much more subtle... doesn't work for W3C home page, for example, which has different information on different days.
20:05:55 [Ian_]
TBL: The system would stop. "I'm sorry, I told you that the URI refers to a person; not a painting."
20:06:12 [Ian_]
NW: If I own a URI, I don't know why I don't get to say definitively what it refers to.
20:06:56 [Ian_]
TBL: It's useful to be able to limit scope to information resources rather than have to call up a person to ask what a URI refers to.
20:06:56 [DanC_g]
we can, and we do go thru doing just that.
20:07:21 [Ian_]
TBL :The Web is built of networked information objects. The identity of those things is defined by what is invariant when you do GET with that URI.
20:07:41 [timbl]
and what is invariant is that that is a picture of an oil painting.
20:07:45 [Ian_]
PH: If you say that what the URI denotes is fixed by the owner, then any URI can denote anything.
20:07:47 [Ian_]
DC, CL: Yes.
20:08:00 [Chris]
yes, and that would be useless, but is still possible
20:08:01 [Ian_]
PH: I don't think that's feasible as a network architecture.
20:08:03 [DanC_g]
(I wasn't among those who sayd "yes" there)
20:08:08 [DanC_g]
ack danc
20:08:08 [Zakim]
DanC_g, you wanted to state my position on httpRange-14: I don't think we shoulld resolve it in this version. I think we should make and use the distinction between resources in
20:08:08 [Norm]
ack DanC_g
20:08:11 [Zakim]
... general and information resources; i.e. those resources that can have representations.
20:08:24 [Ian_]
DC: On this issue, I don't think that we should resolve it entirely in v1 of arch doc.
20:08:35 [Ian_]
DC: There's a lot of work to be done before we do.
20:08:43 [timbl]
PH: If it were really true that yo had to ask someone what their URI meant, the web would not work. It isnt a working network architecture
20:08:55 [Ian_]
DC: But I do think it's useful to make the distinction between information resources and other resources. It will help the community talk about the problem.
20:09:29 [timbl]
seconded
20:09:36 [Norm]
q?
20:09:38 [Norm]
ack tbray
20:09:38 [Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to say that the information system includes only those things for which people publish URIs, and they're only good citizens if they make representations available
20:09:56 [Norm]
q+ to ask who's going to write the new text
20:10:39 [TBray]
sorry
20:12:33 [Ian_]
Ian_ has joined #tagmem
20:12:37 [Ian]
Ian has joined #tagmem
20:13:37 [Ian]
PH: I don't know what it means to build a networked ifnormation system with galaxies.
20:13:37 [Ian]
DC: Is it useful to make a decision about adding "information resource" without RF here?
20:13:37 [Ian]
NW: I'd like to move forward even if RF's not here. He can object.
20:14:06 [Ian]
Action DC: Propose text for architecture document that distinguishes "information resource" from other types of "resources".
20:14:10 [Norm]
ack norm
20:14:10 [Zakim]
Norm, you wanted to ask who's going to write the new text
20:14:38 [Ian]
DC: I'd like to resolve to include such language.
20:15:01 [Ian]
PC: No chance.
20:15:12 [Ian]
[Others may have said no as well]
20:15:25 [Norm]
ack paul
20:15:34 [Ian]
DC: I don't accept the action if we are not deciding.
20:15:41 [Norm]
q?
20:15:41 [Ian]
Action TB: Propose text for architecture document that distinguishes "information resource" from other types of "resources".
20:16:14 [Ian]
---
20:16:22 [Ian]
httpRange-14
20:16:31 [Ian]
NW: I fear that we simply disagree. What's the best way to frame the discussion that will be constructive?
20:16:35 [Ian]
DC: I move to adjourn.
20:17:09 [Ian]
NW: Several people wrote back and said that my summary was flatly wrong.
20:17:17 [timbl]
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI), defined by "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax" [URI], are central to Web Architecture. Identifier here is used here in the sense of name. Parties who wish to communicate about something will establish a shared vocabulary, i.e. a shared set of bindings between identifiers and things. This shared vocabulary has a tangible value: it reduces the cost of communication. The ability to use common identifiers across
20:17:18 [Ian]
PH floats an idea.
20:17:18 [timbl]
URIs identify resources. A resource can be be anything. Certain resources are information resources, which convey information. These are termed information resources. Much of this document discusses information resources, often using the term resource.
20:17:20 [timbl]
An information resource is on the Web when it can be accessed in practice.
20:17:22 [timbl]
When a representation of one information resource refers to another information resource with a URI, a link is formed between the two resources. The networked information system is built of linked resources, and the large-scale effect is a shared information space. The value of the Web grows exponentially as a function of the number of linked resources (the "network effect").
20:17:41 [Ian]
PH: Perhaps question producing more contention than it needs to.
20:18:16 [Ian]
PH: If an http URI is used with "#fragid", then, it should be that the URI before the "#" SHOULD denote an information resource.
20:18:18 [Chris]
oh, magic hashes again
20:18:47 [Ian]
PH: This gives an opening to folks like Patrick Stickler. But the point is not to have one's cake and eat it too.
20:19:21 [DanC_g]
ack danc
20:19:21 [Zakim]
DanC_g, you wanted to doubt that hayes's suggestion helps... I'm pretty sure roy thinks robot#topPart works while robot refers to a non-document
20:19:39 [Ian]
DC: I don't think this suggestion helps. RF might say that <URI#top> refers to top part of robot and <URI> refers to entire robot.
20:20:04 [Ian]
[TB notes that MIME type doesn't say anything about resource, just type of representation]
20:20:18 [Chris]
its not clear that resources even have a type
20:20:34 [DanC_g]
not in general, no, chris.
20:20:44 [Ian]
q?
20:20:48 [TBray]
It's pretty clear that they *don't* have a "type" absent external assertions e.g. in RDF
20:21:47 [timbl]
paulcottpon/name/foobar
20:21:50 [Ian]
PC: Imagine I had an XML namespace (paulcotton.name/foobar) describing a bunch of things, and I don't make available a namespace document. And I want to refer to subpieces of the namespace. I can do something like #part1, #part2 to refer to pieces. That seems to make something illegal that folks are already doing today.
20:22:00 [TBray]
paulcotton.name/foobar#2
20:22:08 [Ian]
PC: I use /foobar#part1, /foobar#part2....
20:22:34 [Ian]
PC: I hear PH saying that if I use "#fragid" then there had better be a document available even when the fragid is stripped.
20:22:38 [Ian]
PH: Yes, I was saying that.
20:22:40 [Chris]
is 'a document' the same as 'an information resource representation'
20:23:07 [TBray]
don't think so, Chris
20:23:20 [TBray]
I think a document is a representation
20:23:24 [Norm]
q?
20:23:47 [Ian]
TBL: The question is whether I can use a URI to refer to a painting, or what magic I have to do to figure out whether the URI refers to a painting or an information object that refers to it.
20:24:44 [Ian]
TBL: I'd like to be able to refer to an invoice for a robot, and be sure that someone else doesn't use the URI to get the sound of the robot hitting the floor.
20:24:54 [Ian]
NW: That might happen; there's nothing that can be done about it.
20:24:56 [TBray]
NW: shit happens
20:25:20 [Ian]
TBL: But that case is broken. People shouldn't do that. It's damaging.
20:25:27 [Ian]
TBray: We have language to that effect (on ambiguity).
20:25:44 [Ian]
TBL: I want language that says that if you use a URI that refers to a picture and to a person, that that's wrong.
20:26:03 [Ian]
NW: I agree that that's wrong. But I can't swallow assertions related to URIs "with #".
20:26:16 [Chris]
'wrong' and 'inconsistent' are human value judgements and as such, it will be possible to argue for and against them
20:26:40 [Ian]
q+
20:27:33 [Ian]
TBL: Which assertion is wrong?
20:27:39 [Ian]
NW: Don't say that the URI refers to a document.
20:27:49 [Ian]
DC: TBL's argument is rationale, but it's not compelling.
20:28:02 [Ian]
TBL: So the argument that the information content will always be there is not compelling?
20:28:23 [Ian]
[TBL and CL disagree whether consistency is a human value judgment.]
20:28:24 [Norm]
q?
20:29:02 [Ian]
DC: The CYC ontology is coherent, but saying it's web arch at this point seems premature to me.
20:29:15 [Ian]
DC: Not every web master has agreed to CYC documentation and agreed to it.
20:30:00 [TBray]
The genie's out of the bottle already, just like qnames in content
20:30:08 [Ian]
TBL: The cost of not agreeing to this point is very high. The language (which one?) will have to be reverse engineered in a year.
20:30:27 [Ian]
NW: I don't think TBL has made the argument in a compelling fashion yet.
20:30:32 [Norm]
what tbray said
20:31:05 [Ian]
IJ: Any summary on this part of the discussion?
20:31:14 [DanC_g]
(I'm OK with gaps in the IRC log; in fact, if people have higher expectations than that, they should think again.)
20:31:14 [Ian]
TBray: no.
20:31:18 [Ian]
:)
20:31:54 [DanC_g]
hey... we got a decision about changing "bindings" to meaning! That's non-trivial!
20:32:25 [TBray]
This isn't supposed to be easy
20:32:49 [Ian]
NW: Thanks to all, especially PH.
20:33:00 [Zakim]
-TBray
20:33:00 [Zakim]
-DanC
20:33:01 [Zakim]
-Norm
20:33:03 [Zakim]
-Paul
20:33:03 [Ian]
PH: I won't make my "crazy suggestion" anymore; it's been shot down. :)
20:33:04 [Zakim]
- +1.334.933.aaaa
20:33:04 [Ian]
ADJOURNED
20:33:04 [Zakim]
-PatHayes
20:33:06 [Zakim]
-TimBL
20:33:07 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop