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