IRC log of tagmem on 2003-08-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:58:56 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
18:58:57 [DanC_]
DanC_ has joined #tagmem
19:01:25 [Zakim]
19:01:28 [Zakim]
- +1.603.539.aaaa
19:01:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.539.aaaa
19:01:47 [Zakim]
19:01:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.714.658.aabb
19:02:00 [Stuart]
zakim, ??p1 is me
19:02:00 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
19:02:39 [Stuart]
zakim, ++1.714 is Roy
19:02:39 [Zakim]
sorry, Stuart, I do not recognize a party named '++1.714'
19:02:46 [Stuart]
zakim, 714 is Roy
19:02:46 [Zakim]
sorry, Stuart, I do not recognize a party named '714'
19:03:21 [Chris]
Chris has joined #tagmem
19:03:35 [Chris]
zakim, dial chris-work
19:03:35 [Zakim]
ok, Chris; the call is being made
19:03:36 [Zakim]
19:04:00 [Zakim]
+ +1.514.200.aacc
19:04:01 [Zakim]
19:07:27 [Zakim]
19:09:58 [TBray]
TBray scribing
19:10:35 [TBray]
... discussion of agenda...
19:12:49 [TBray]
PCotton had made a point of coming to this meeting because provisional agenda said we were going to be discussing extensibility
19:13:02 [TBray]
Letting it slide has a very significant impact on our plan
19:13:29 [TBray]
PC: what is impact on downstream agendas of moving extensibility off this week?
19:15:30 [TBray]
RESOLVED: accept July 28 and Aug 4 minutes
19:16:08 [DanC_]
(we decided in Vancouver to cancel 1Sep)
19:16:14 [TBray]
Next two meetings have large numbers of regrets
19:16:27 [TBray]
SW: suggest next meeting 8 September
19:16:38 [TBray]
RESOLVED: next meeting 8 September
19:17:05 [DanC_]
yes, 3pET, Chris.
19:17:10 [TBray]
ACTION: SW to review work plan from Vancouver F2F to help with schedule
19:17:46 [TBray]
TBL: Possible conflict with other F2F meetings Sep 8
19:17:51 [TBray]
TBL: Might affect IJ too
19:18:26 [Norm]
FYI: 8 Sep was to focus on namespaceDocument-8
19:18:28 [DanC_]
(I haven't starting making travel arrangements for Bristol and still have conflicts and don't know how they'll be resolved.)
19:18:40 [TBray]
SW: Should he arrange a single hotel for Bristol?
19:19:11 [TBray]
DC: Consider net access
19:19:29 [TBray]
ACTION: SW to make a suggestion re hotel on email
19:19:38 [TBray]
19:19:46 [TBray]
XML Binary Workshop: anything further
19:19:58 [TBray]
CL: those who are going should go, but not as TAG reps
19:20:04 [TBray]
SW: OK to answer questions on where TAG is at
19:20:23 [TBray]
PC: +1
19:20:35 [TBray]
19:21:06 [Zakim]
+ +1.250.629.aadd
19:21:27 [TBray]
Zakim, aadd is DOrchard
19:21:27 [Zakim]
+DOrchard; got it
19:21:34 [TBray]
19:21:44 [TBray]
Proposed new issue, see
19:22:43 [DanC_]
19:22:57 [TBray]
19:23:08 [Zakim]
- +1.714.658.aabb
19:23:12 [Norm]
19:23:14 [Stuart]
19:23:15 [Chris]
19:23:45 [Zakim]
+ +1.714.658.aaee
19:23:55 [TBray]
Zakim, aaee is Roy
19:23:55 [Zakim]
+Roy; got it
19:24:27 [TBray]
DOrchard: raises same issue re extensibility as PC did above
19:25:59 [TBray]
TBL: Deep issue
19:26:08 [TBray]
TBL: Cuts across many SW, RDF, CG, TAG issues
19:26:22 [TBray]
TBL: Risk of philosophical ratholes
19:26:37 [TBray]
TBL: BOF at Budapest conference, need to get this written down
19:26:49 [TBray]
TBL: IMHO need to write down how to interpret
19:26:54 [TBray]
TBL: Easy in RDF
19:27:41 [Stuart]
19:28:57 [TBray]
TBL: confusion re 'denote'/'mean' etc
19:29:20 [TBray]
TBL: how are RDF/HTTP/OWL tied together
19:29:33 [TBray]
TBL: when you deref a predicate's URI, you can use the URI to get more info about it
19:30:21 [Zakim]
19:30:25 [Zakim]
19:31:15 [TBray]
TBL: discussions need to make sure they use URIs the way the rest of the Web does
19:31:47 [TBray]
SW: need TAG input?
19:31:47 [Chris]
If P means that given binary relation is *asserted* then thats ok, but that it *holds* is a different level of social meaning
19:32:06 [TBray]
TBL: Yes, TAG is 50% implicated
19:32:55 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
19:32:58 [TBray]
DC: history accurate, but missed technical issue
19:33:20 [TBray]
q+ to say that I feel poorly qualified to help RDF people & OWL people sort out their disagreements
19:33:39 [Stuart]
ack TBray
19:33:39 [Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to say that I feel poorly qualified to help RDF people & OWL people sort out their disagreements
19:34:04 [TBray]
TB: having trouble understanding the issue
19:34:21 [TBray]
SW: task force?
19:34:51 [TBray]
DC: Possible outcome: text in webarch saying how URIs are shared
19:35:11 [TBray]
DC: If you connect protocols to logic, you have answered the question of meaning
19:35:15 [Chris]
the architecture is that a single meaning is given to each URI (such
19:35:15 [Chris]
as P), that the URI ownership system makes statements by owners
19:35:15 [Chris]
authoritative weight, despite what other documents may say.
19:35:42 [TBray]
TBL: confusion between mean/denote
19:37:00 [TBray]
TBL: we agree that it's good for URIs to produce information
19:37:19 [TBray]
CL: you are claiming that if someone makes an assertion that a URI means X, that can never be changed
19:37:58 [TBray]
TBL: if I'm sesnding an RDF assertion to order a coat, and I have a URI for Pantone #1003, then when I dereference that I should get a colour chart
19:38:04 [Chris]
and who is 'someone' and what exacty is that meaning and where is it written and to what degree of precision
19:38:21 [TBray]
TBL: so to avoid disputes in future, that URI is authoritative
19:38:38 [Chris]
q+ to point out edge flaws of TimBLs example
19:39:04 [TBray]
TB: OK, but what's RDF-specific?
19:40:31 [TBray]
TBL: meaning of statement is determined by predicate
19:40:50 [TBray]
TBL: which you can find out more about by dereferencing
19:41:54 [TBray]
TB: so do you want to say that when you identify things in RDF, you should make the URIs yield useful information
19:41:55 [Chris]
what TimB says is true, but is not reallt the issue at hand it seems to me.
19:42:40 [TBray]
q+ to say that I don't understand potential outcomes well enough yes to say "yes" to issue
19:43:02 [Stuart]
ack Chris
19:43:02 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to point out edge flaws of TimBLs example
19:43:41 [Stuart]
ack DanC
19:43:41 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to point out what folks might think is in the RDF spec that is, in fact, not there any more.
19:43:58 [TBray]
DC: current RDF spec makes no linkage between use of URIs in RDf and their use in HTTP
19:44:00 [Chris]
some of the statements in section 3 of TimBLs email are, to me, self evidently false
19:44:06 [TBray]
DC: It used to, but people objected
19:44:10 [Stuart]
ack TBray
19:44:10 [Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to say that I don't understand potential outcomes well enough yes to say "yes" to issue
19:45:24 [TBray]
TB: seems that situation described by Dan is indeed bogus
19:45:24 [Roy]
There are hundreds of different uses of URI in HTTP
19:46:03 [DanC_]
straw poll pls
19:46:29 [TBray]
SW: straw poll
19:46:32 [Chris]
yes there is clearly an issue, and we should take it up
19:46:34 [DanC_]
yes, I think there's an issue that's worth the TAG's time.
19:46:34 [Norm]
19:46:37 [Roy]
19:46:38 [TBray]
Abstain for now, but would like to ask a couple quewstions
19:46:40 [TBray]
PC: abstain
19:46:51 [DanC_]
the chair will please read the IRC responses
19:47:13 [TBray]
TBL: yes
19:47:20 [Stuart]
yes because needs more discussion
19:48:12 [TBray]
DO: leaning to "no" because there's probably an issue here, but in past when the issue-raiser hasn't been clear enough, we will say "we don't get it, more info please"
19:48:36 [TBray]
q+ to ask politics question
19:48:56 [DanC_]
Zakim, aaaa is TimBL
19:48:56 [Zakim]
+TimBL; got it
19:49:01 [DanC_]
ack timbl
19:49:04 [DanC_]
ack aaaa
19:49:12 [DanC_]
ack +1.603.539.aaaa
19:50:09 [TBray]
TBL: reprises last para of his email referenced above
19:50:29 [TBray]
oops, actually reprises whole email
19:50:30 [Chris]
that seems like an open-ended list to me
19:52:05 [Stuart]
ack TBray
19:52:05 [Zakim]
TBray, you wanted to ask politics question
19:53:03 [Norm]
I'm content to accept the issue, but I have real concerns that TimBL is suggesting an attempt to "legislate morality". If I own a URI for my car and I assert my car is Blue, that doesn't make it true. And if eleven other people assert that it's Green, the fact that they're other people doesn't make their assertions false.
19:53:20 [DanC_]
interesting point, norm.
19:53:20 [TBray]
TB: suppose we do nothing, toss it back, what happens?
19:53:26 [Norm]
My car is, in fact, green. A pretty ugly green, in fact. :-)
19:53:56 [TBray]
TBL: they might build a consistent logic system with nothing to do with the web
19:54:16 [TBray]
CL: want to take it up although SW people might not like the answer
19:54:16 [Chris]
well said, norm
19:54:27 [DanC_]
yes, issue for the TAG
19:54:31 [Stuart]
ack Dan
19:54:35 [TBray]
DC: if we do nothing, discussions will go on diffusely, do we want to be at center
19:54:36 [Roy]
19:54:38 [TBray]
19:54:39 [Norm]
19:54:43 [Stuart]
19:54:43 [Chris]
yes it is an issue but I request a clearer problem statement or statements
19:54:50 [TBray]
PC: abstain
19:54:53 [TBray]
TBL: Yes
19:55:09 [TBray]
DO: abstain
19:55:49 [TBray]
RESOLVED: issue accepted
19:56:15 [DanC_]
19:56:23 [Chris]
issue 42?
19:56:27 [Norm]
19:56:28 [TBray]
RESOLVED: RDF-URI-Meaning-[++Ian]
19:56:34 [Chris]
** please ***
19:56:55 [TBray]
SW: approach SWCG for joint meeting?
19:57:15 [TBray]
ACTION: DC to take this back to SWCG
19:57:55 [TBray]
TBL: not clear that SWCG people are the right people
19:58:05 [TBray]
DC: which time slot?
19:58:09 [TBray]
various: their slot
19:58:25 [DanC_]
where "their slot" means "not the TAG slot"
19:58:43 [Norm]
FYI: it appears to be issue 39
19:58:51 [TBray]
PC: need to discuss how this issue affects progress to last call
19:59:02 [TBray]
PC: does this go to top of list?
19:59:05 [TBray]
19:59:26 [TBray]
PC: one reason I abstained is that I'm concerned about adding items to worklist
19:59:30 [DanC_]
q+ timbl
19:59:34 [Stuart]
q+ TBL
19:59:41 [DanC_]
ack danc
19:59:41 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to set expectations to resolve this in Q1 2004
19:59:44 [Stuart]
ack TBray
19:59:46 [TBray]
TB: don't see this one on path to last call
19:59:49 [TBray]
DC: spring 2004
19:59:53 [Stuart]
ack timbl
19:59:57 [Stuart]
ack TBL
20:00:30 [Norm]
The advantage of meeting on their time is that it doesn't have to step on our time as we progress towards last call
20:00:37 [TBray]
20:00:39 [TBray]
20:01:30 [TBray]
SW: RF's action item on sect3 re-write?
20:01:39 [TBray]
RF: if not done by Aug 18, won't get done for a while
20:01:58 [Chris]
Create an illustration of two resources, one designated by URI without fragment, and one designated by same URI with fragment...
20:02:14 [Chris]
please someone point me to a whiteboard photo, then i can draw it
20:02:48 [DanC_]
I felt so good after the planning session in Vancouver; ah well, "life is what happens when you're making other plans"
20:02:50 [TBray]
They'll be in the photosummary I iposted, Chris
20:03:52 [TBray]
ACTION TB: bring meeting photos to Ian's attention
20:04:03 [DanC_]
I can edit the ftf record, as can chris
20:04:30 [TBray]
modify action item, point mailing list at photos
20:04:39 [DanC_]
i.e. I am technically capable; my question is: May I? ah... yes, stuart answered. thx.
20:05:18 [TBray]
Action item to CL: in re bullleted-list re SVG reference
20:07:32 [TBray]
... discussion of various action items ...
20:08:22 [TBray]
TB/CL action item on "text-based" done
20:08:35 [TBray]
TB "xml-based" not done
20:09:08 [TBray]
NW: WIll get to his actions this week
20:10:03 [TBray]
redraft of Moby Dick section?
20:10:43 [TBray]
leave it pending
20:11:14 [TBray]
20:11:58 [TBray]
DC: .../tag/webarch/tim
20:12:42 [TBray]
"Integrate findings"?
20:13:07 [TBray]
TB will make himself available to IJ to work on this
20:14:00 [TBray]
20:14:07 [TBray]
20:14:13 [TBray]
Rewrite of intro
20:14:58 [TBray]
RF: Need to be able to change sections of the document
20:15:11 [TBray]
RF: not worth working on if it's not open to change
20:15:26 [Stuart]
ack TBray
20:17:39 [TBray]
TB: Roy was trying to make a technical point about def'n of Web. That aside, I thought he prior language was a bit clearer
20:17:56 [TBray]
TB: obviously OK to change doc, but we need to have better feeling as for what parts of the doc are cooked
20:18:07 [TBray]
RF: still need to address problem of def'n of web.
20:18:24 [TBray]
RF: currently starts out by defining things as an information system, & follows on to resources from there
20:18:51 [TBray]
RF: but that leaves out SW, need to start from further back and then work forward to the description of the current browser-centric hypertextual web
20:19:39 [TBray]
RF: the web isn't an "information system" , it's the space of resources that are interconneected
20:19:40 [TBray]
20:20:07 [Chris]
in what way is a space of resources not a system?
20:20:09 [TBray]
RF: depending how you define the web constrains hwo you define what resource means
20:20:11 [Stuart]
ack TBray
20:21:01 [TBray]
TB: def'n excludes software components?
20:21:31 [TBray]
RF: yes, because components change & are used depending on what you're doing
20:21:38 [TBray]
DO: <missed question>
20:21:45 [Stuart]
acl TimBL
20:21:48 [DanC_]
(re-starting discussion of what the web is doesn't speak well for our hopes for last call)
20:21:54 [Stuart]
ack TimBL
20:22:02 [TBray]
RF: My dissertation explicitly limits itself to the information system
20:22:24 [TBray]
TBL: not productive to go back and argue about what web really, really is
20:23:04 [TBray]
TBL: one subset is what you can get at with HTTP GET
20:23:14 [TBray]
20:23:35 [TBray]
TBL: email is part of the information space, but HTTP is very different from SMTP
20:23:55 [TBray]
TBL: could say info space (includes|doesn't include) things like email and HTTP
20:24:18 [TBray]
TBL: so don't need to spend time on Web "for purposes of this document"
20:25:01 [TBray]
TBL: ... fuzzy edges of what the Web is ...
20:25:13 [TBray]
TBL: the only way to get a handle is to write an ontology
20:25:50 [TBray]
q+ DO
20:25:57 [DanC_]
ack tbray
20:26:35 [Stuart]
ack DO
20:26:59 [TBray]
TB: happier with a definition that includes the software as part of the web, but acknowledges that you might be able to start with a definition based purely in information
20:27:59 [TBray]
DO: webservices people have wrangled over what a web service is at length, settled on a definition explicitly limited to the doc they're writing, admit their may be things outside that are considered web services but that's not what we're talking about
20:28:17 [Stuart]
ack DanC
20:28:17 [Zakim]
DanC_, you wanted to say yes, let's focus on the interaction between the terms we've using/defining in our doc... I hadn't appreciated the connection between 'Web' and 'Resource'
20:28:20 [Zakim]
... that Roy points out, but I dunno what to do about it off the top of my head
20:30:39 [TBray]
TB: Aug 1st text is getting pretty close in quality to July 16 text, modulo my specific suggestions (in particular see notes on "effect of following web architecture")
20:31:15 [TBray]
DC: neither July nor August version is acceptable to all the TAG as of now
20:31:56 [Zakim]
20:31:58 [TBray]
20:31:58 [Zakim]
20:31:58 [Zakim]
20:31:59 [Zakim]
20:32:00 [Roy]
Roy has left #tagmem
20:32:47 [Zakim]
20:35:20 [DanC_]
RRSAgent, stop