16:12:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sw-meaning
16:12:19 <sandro> zakim, this will be sw-meaning
16:12:19 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, sandro
16:12:23 <sandro> zakim, this will be swmn
16:12:23 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, sandro
16:12:35 <sandro> zakim, what do you see?
16:12:36 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, sandro.
16:12:42 <sandro> zakim, list conferences
16:12:42 <Zakim> I see W3C_HTMLPAG()11:00AM, XML_SchemaWG()11:00AM, SW_Annotea()10:30AM, SW_RDFCore()10:00AM active
16:12:44 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are I18N_WG(coord)11:00AM, Style_XSL WG()11:00AM
16:12:55 <sandro> zakim, list upcoming conferences
16:12:55 <Zakim> I see W3C_HTMLPAG()11:00AM, XML_SchemaWG()11:00AM, SW_Annotea()10:30AM, SW_RDFCore()10:00AM active
16:12:57 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are I18N_WG(coord)11:00AM, Style_XSL WG()11:00AM
16:13:30 <sandro> zakim, this will be sw_meaning
16:13:30 <Zakim> ok, sandro; I see SW_Meaning()11:30AM scheduled to start in 17 minutes
16:24:35 <bijan> bijan has joined #sw-meaning
16:27:43 <Zakim> SW_Meaning()11:30AM has now started
16:27:49 <Zakim> +Sandro
16:28:08 <Zakim> +[UMD]
16:28:28 <bijan> Zakim, [UMD] is bijan
16:28:28 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
16:30:51 <JohnBlack> JohnBlack has joined #sw-meaning
16:31:29 <mdean> mdean has joined #sw-meaning
16:31:30 <Zakim> +John_Black
16:32:19 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
16:33:03 <Zakim> +TimBL
16:35:19 <DanCon> DanCon has joined #sw-meaning
16:35:24 <Zakim> +??P31
16:35:35 <timbl> timbl has joined #sw-meaning
16:36:12 <DanCon> DanCon has changed the topic to: SW-Meaning 31 Oct http://www.w3.org/2003/10/31-sw-meaning-irc
16:36:23 <Zakim> +DanC
16:37:05 <sandro> Bijan: the whole point of "formal meaning" is to abstract away some bits of the meaning
16:37:07 <sandro> (discussing John Black's suggestion of using "connotation")
16:37:10 <Stuart> Stuart has joined #sw-meaning
16:37:13 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
16:37:13 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, bijan, John_Black, Mike_Dean, TimBL, ??P31, DanC
16:37:15 <sandro> zakim, ??P31 is StuartWilliams
16:37:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see Stuart, timbl, DanCon, mdean, JohnBlack, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, sandro
16:37:16 <Zakim> +StuartWilliams; got it
16:37:17 <sandro> we're still waiting for folks
16:37:19 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
16:37:19 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2003/10/31-sw-meaning-irc#T16-37-19
16:37:23 <Zakim> +PatH
16:37:44 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
16:37:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, bijan, John_Black, Mike_Dean, TimBL, StuartWilliams, DanC, PatH
16:37:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see Stuart, timbl, DanCon, mdean, JohnBlack, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, sandro
16:37:49 <Zakim> +Masinter
16:38:27 <mdean> Mike Dean to scribe, based on random assignment
16:38:36 <mdean> Sandro chairing
16:38:58 <sandro> TimBL has not read it....
16:39:01 <mdean> Sandro:  motion to approve minutes of last meeting
16:39:14 <mdean> John Black:  second
16:39:28 <sandro> RESOLVED
16:39:32 <DanCon>  http://www.w3.org/2003/10/10-sw-meaning-irc
16:39:37 <Lar4ry_> Lar4ry_ has joined #sw-meaning
16:39:45 <patH> patH has joined #sw-meaning
16:40:06 <mdean> tentative reservation for Nov 14 & 28
16:40:20 <mdean> TimBL:  28 is day after Thanksgiving
16:40:23 <sandro> Nov 28 doesn't work for folks.
16:40:40 <DanCon> 14 Nov overlaps, probably conflicts with my trip to Japan for the TAG and AC meeting
16:41:30 <DanCon> 21 Nov likewise
16:42:19 <mdean> ?:  suggest scheduling next meeting at end of this meeting
16:42:33 <mdean> Sandro:  might use web-based survey page
16:43:01 <sandro> NO RESOLUTION on future meetings.
16:43:22 <mdean> revisit with 15 minutes to go
16:43:42 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2003/09/meaning/agenda-2003-10-31
16:43:43 <danbri> danbri has joined #sw-meaning
16:44:21 <mdean> agenda now includes HTML links
16:44:51 <DanCon> DanCon has changed the topic to: sw-meaning 31 oct http://www.w3.org/2003/09/meaning/agenda-2003-10-31
16:45:15 <mdean> Sandro:  tried to find 3 most "interesting" topics that might make it into our final text
16:45:18 <DanCon> regrets danbri
16:45:30 <mdean> 1:  Pat's open - TimBL agrees?
16:45:34 <mdean> 2:  not sure of consensus
16:45:45 <mdean> 3:  ?
16:46:26 <mdean> Pat:  TAG group that denotations need to be pinned down for communication to work
16:46:36 <mdean> Pat:  not necessary - just sufficient overlap in understanding
16:46:36 <bijan> q+
16:47:20 <mdean> Pat:  agents involved in some conversation/transaction just need to use same URIs and formal models, i.e. same ontologies
16:47:25 <Lar4ry_> q+
16:47:40 <sandro> ack bijan
16:47:41 <mdean> Pat:  doesn't matter if ontology underspecifies, as long as they agree on ontology
16:48:16 <mdean> Bijan:  simple denotation view not necessary or sufficient (not coherent)
16:48:32 <mdean> Bijan:  is Semantic Web more than minimal grounds for communication?
16:48:39 <timbl> q+ to basically agree with the principle but to point out that the degree of overlap in real cases varies hugely.
16:49:06 <mdean> Bijan:  probably overkill, but ...
16:49:20 <DanCon> "tag decision"? I guess I'm lost.
16:49:33 <mdean> Bijan:  challenge to pin down specific further benefits by imposing this condition
16:49:42 <timbl> q+ tim2 to suggest that Bijan's view that the single denoattion is "not coherent" is similar to a rejection of classical mechanics. 
16:49:53 <sandro> ack Lar4ry_ 
16:49:56 <mdean> Bijan:  view that URIs denote one thing in all contexts
16:50:07 <mdean> Larry:  problem with "in all contexts"
16:50:25 <DanCon> "in all contexts"... where does that occur in the text on the table?
16:50:44 <patH> q+
16:50:46 <timbl> q+ tim3 to ask  Pat what he meant about people  needing to just use the same ontology to be able to communicate effecively, when we have no link between the meaning of a document and the use of the ontology.
16:51:30 <bijan> http uris, presumably
16:51:32 <mdean> Larry:  3 contexts:  as hyperlink (href, img src), XML namespace names (unique identifier), RDF (document vs. abstract concept)
16:51:43 <sandro> q?
16:51:53 <sandro> ack DanCon
16:51:53 <Zakim> DanCon, you wanted to ask about "same sources of formal data"
16:52:38 <bijan> I think I introduced "same denotation in all contexts" language
16:52:43 <mdean> Dan:  do agents need to share formal sources?
16:52:51 <timbl> (I think that the "context" point Larry just made is what I have thought of as different systems (global hypertext, semantci web, etc) build from different languages (HTML, RDF) on top of the web information space.
16:53:00 <sandro> ack timbl
16:53:00 <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to basically agree with the principle but to point out that the degree of overlap in real cases varies hugely.
16:53:00 <mdean> Pat:  no need to require further semantic uniqueness
16:53:03 <DanCon> ah... so sharing formal sources is sufficient; he didn't say necessary.
16:53:38 <sandro> ack tim3
16:53:38 <Zakim> tim3, you wanted to ask  Pat what he meant about people  needing to just use the same ontology to be able to communicate effecively, when we have no link between the meaning of a
16:53:41 <Zakim> ... document and the use of the ontology.
16:53:42 <mdean> Tim:  agree with principle
16:54:26 <Zakim> -John_Black
16:54:45 <mdean> Tim:  missing the link
16:55:06 <mdean> Tim:  predicates are well-understood (good enough for government work)
16:55:19 <Zakim> +John_Black
16:55:43 <sandro> q?
16:55:44 <DanCon> tim, did you agree to the agenda? if not, please so. If so, please comment on the text in the agenda.
16:55:46 <sandro> ack tim2
16:55:46 <Zakim> tim2, you wanted to suggest that Bijan's view that the single denoattion is "not coherent" is similar to a rejection of classical mechanics. 
16:55:50 <mdean> Tim:  build up by defining predicates and classes - is this unique to the world, RDF, or just random?
16:56:09 <timbl> q?
16:56:53 <sandro> ack patH
16:57:18 <timbl> We were here before: Is the predicate special?
16:57:27 <mdean> Pat:  emerging style of use important
16:57:57 <bijan> pat's "don't encourage" line +1
16:58:08 <sandro> q?
16:58:08 <mdean-scr> Pat:  undesirable to encourage - people will just do it, or just let emerge
16:58:13 <Lar4ry_> q+
16:58:31 <mdean-scr> Pat:  give world freedom to find its own mode
16:58:45 <mdean-scr> Sandro:  this is off-topic
16:59:08 <bijan> q+
16:59:21 <mdean-scr> Sandro:  consensus between Tim and Pat - can we take Pat's text and all agree on it?
16:59:25 <patH> q+
16:59:43 <Zakim> +??P4
16:59:52 <mdean-scr> starting with "words convey meaning"
17:00:01 <sandro> zakim, ??P4 is PFPS
17:00:01 <Zakim> +PFPS; got it
17:00:05 <sandro> q?
17:00:09 <sandro> ack Lar4ry_
17:00:57 <sandro> Larry: I don't think the SemWeb should have URIs be like words
17:01:09 <mdean-scr> Larry:  may be how words work, but bad idea to use URIs as words (e.g. organization home page URI as signifier for organization)
17:01:18 <pfps> pfps has joined #sw-meaning
17:01:24 <mdean-scr> Larry:  not a matter of discovery, issue of language design
17:01:33 <timbl> q+ to  bring a test case up in which I define   tim:apples    is defined to be a URI which has the meaninhg such that any statement which uses it as having the meaning if being tim's apples and  that  the apples are good to eat.
17:01:37 <timbl> q-
17:01:39 <mdean-scr> Larry:  language designers get to say what the language means
17:01:53 <mdean-scr> Larry:  natural language leads you into the weeds - don't need to go there
17:01:55 <sandro> ack bijan
17:02:28 <timbl> q+ tim2 to connect the ideas of prescriptive specification with Pat's text.
17:02:44 <mdean-scr> Bijan:  agreement that URIs convey meaning?  what conditions are necessary to convey the right meaning?  requirements unclear
17:02:49 <DanCon> hmm... it was clear that Larry was arguing against the text in the agenda; I can't tell whether bijan is arguing for or against.
17:03:08 <mdean-scr> Bijan:  like requirement of model theoretic foundations for our languages
17:03:47 <mdean-scr> Bijan:  additional desire to add another requirement - sounds easy, but hard to get URI to denote one thing
17:04:07 <mdean-scr> Bijan:  don't know whether i support pat's text
17:04:51 <mdean-scr> Bijan:  prefer to write nothing
17:05:06 <sandro> q?
17:05:08 <mdean-scr> Bijan composing text for IRC ...
17:05:39 <timbl> pwd
17:06:29 <sandro> ack patH
17:06:33 <mdean-scr> Sandro:  message 93 connects message 92 with URIs
17:06:50 <mdean-scr> Pat:  text intended for debate, not formal document
17:07:24 <bijan> Hmm.
17:07:39 <mdean-scr> Pat:  to clarify, we shouldn't say that a URI can't have a unique denotation, only that it need not have a unique denotation
17:07:47 <sandro> Pat: I dont mean to say URIs CANNOT have unique denot; just that they NEED NOT.
17:07:51 <Lar4ry_> +q
17:07:52 <bijan> Hmm.
17:08:02 <Lar4ry_> q+
17:08:05 <mdean-scr> Pat:  agree with Larry's point about words
17:08:33 <sandro> q?
17:08:52 <mdean-scr> Pat:  this isn't motivated by language metaphor, but technical details in trying to write formal ontologies
17:09:05 <sandro> ack timbl
17:09:21 <mdean-scr> ACTION (Pat):  write up summary by Monday
17:09:27 <bijan> I would propose, perhaps, "URIs need not have an unique denotation..." But I have no idea what to fill in for the ...
17:09:43 <DanCon> (I don't expect to hold PatH to the Monday deadline)
17:09:56 <sandro> q?
17:10:04 <sandro> ack tim2
17:10:04 <Zakim> tim2, you wanted to connect the ideas of prescriptive specification with Pat's text.
17:10:14 <bijan> I don't understand what having a denotation means outside of an interpretation
17:10:45 <mdean-scr> Tim:  3 views consistent in the way that classical mechanics and quantum mechanics are consistent
17:11:02 <bijan> So, do URIs have (ought to have) the same denotation in all interpretations?
17:11:25 <mdean-scr> Tim:  community sizes - huge overlap worldwide in understanding of integers
17:11:45 <sandro> Thanks for attending while you could, Stuart.  Bye!
17:11:59 <Lar4ry_> q?
17:12:23 <bijan> Let me suggest Paul Benacerraf's "What Numbers Could Not Be"
17:12:28 <bijan> Hmm dicussion: http://hilton.org.uk/what_numbers_are_not.phtml
17:12:40 <patH> q+ reply to Tim
17:12:58 <mdean-scr> Tim:  work on particular terms very hard - difference in overlap is reduced but never vanishes, but allows systems to work assuming its 0 - how engineering structures (including the Internet) have been designed and built
17:13:32 <Zakim> -StuartWilliams
17:13:45 <sandro> ack Lar4ry_
17:13:51 <mdean-scr> Tim:  get used to working with extreme case
17:14:24 <sandro> Tim: It's like Quantum Mechanics and Classical Mechanics -- they are well enough aligned for practical work.
17:14:44 <bijan> er...I thought denoational semantics *were* model theoretic semantics
17:14:46 <mdean-scr> Larry:  terms used in different ways:  e.g., denotation (logic vs. programming language) - RFC 2396 uses programming language sense
17:14:48 <sandro> Larry: RFC 2396 uses "denotation" and "identification" as in programming languages.
17:15:09 <sandro> q?
17:15:09 <bijan> q+
17:15:28 <sandro> ack reply
17:15:28 <Zakim> reply, you wanted to Tim
17:15:31 <timbl> Larry: In RFC2396,  the concepts of "identifier" and "denotation"  come from programming languages, not from [model theory?]
17:15:53 <bijan> +1 against quantum theory analogy
17:15:55 <mdean-scr> Pat:  don't accept analogy to quantum theory
17:16:06 <bijan> Foldoc on denotational semantics http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?denotational+semantics
17:16:20 <mdean-scr> Pat:  no evidence that people agree in that way, lots that they don't
17:16:30 <bijan> http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?domain+theory
17:16:34 <mdean-scr> Pat:  writing ontologies exposes disagreements
17:16:35 <timbl> q+ to say I am NOT saying that this is all philosophical froth.  the process fo ontology building is very important.
17:16:45 <bijan> The above links to the domain theory page
17:16:51 <timbl> And the prescriptive model of the meaning of terms does *mpot* hold in that process.
17:17:02 <mdean-scr> Pat:  technology sensitive to differences in meaning
17:17:22 <mdean-scr> mpot?
17:17:34 <Lar4ry_> Larry noted several times: we shouldn't be trying to discover what URIs *are*, we should be establishing some principles for what the meaning of URIs *should be*, in languages that W3C will define
17:17:45 <bijan> From the foldoc definition: """In denotational semantics of programming languages, the meaning of a program is taken to be an element of a domain.  A domain is a mathematical structure consisting of a set of values (or "points") and an ordering relation, 
17:17:53 <bijan>  <= on those values.  Domain theory is the study of such structures. """
17:17:56 <Lar4ry_> it isn't a process of 'discovery', it's a process of 'definition'.
17:18:12 <mdean-scr> Tim:  absolutely can't assume prescriptive model - like looking at light beam going through a very small hole
17:18:28 <DanCon> yeah, I see this business as ontology building as dealing in the "quantum" space; after an ontology settles down, you get a "classical" phenomenon.
17:18:48 <bijan> Really? I'm not following at all.
17:19:12 <mdean-scr> Pat:  agreement is syntax, then seek clarification
17:19:26 <mdean-scr> Pat:  true semantic agreement would not require clarification
17:19:33 <sandro> q?
17:20:00 <mdean-scr> Pat:  just say that we work like courts, etc.
17:20:08 <sandro> thanks for being patient Bijan
17:20:31 <Lar4ry_> q+ to make the point that we should have two contexts for meaning of URIs, because I am not my web page, and yet in some contexts people want to use the URI of my web page to talk about me
17:20:43 <mdean-scr> Pat:  just point to ontology and say that this captures our current understanding
17:20:54 <mdean-scr> Sandro:  optimistic that Tim will like Pat's text
17:21:53 <mdean-scr> Pat:  not a different sense of denotation, but programming language is special type of domain where universe has fixed points - presumptions that can't be taken for granted - RFC 2396 does have flavor of programming language semantics framework - SW needs larger framework
17:22:10 <sandro> ack bijan
17:23:13 <mdean-scr> Larry:  home page URI used to denote page vs. person in different contexts (href vs. RDF assertion)
17:23:59 <timbl> Tim maintaiuns that Larry's concept of multiple meanings in multiple contexts is not IMH the architecture of the sem web.
17:24:05 <mdean-scr> Larry:  web consortium should define other context for denotation in ontological sense
17:24:13 <sandro> q?
17:24:20 <mdean-scr> ACTION (Larry):  write up in email to group
17:24:42 <sandro> ack timbl
17:24:42 <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to say I am NOT saying that this is all philosophical froth.  the process fo ontology building is very important.
17:24:46 <mdean-scr> Sandro:  return to main track
17:24:58 <Lar4ry_> 'two' is different from 'multiple'
17:25:19 <JohnBlack> There seems to me two contexts here, application of a language versus a formalization of a language.
17:25:47 <bijan> I think it's not that you *can't* behave as if words have a particualr meaning, but what so behaving *consists* of
17:26:07 <mdean-scr> Tim:  possible irony in our use of specific technical terms
17:26:51 <DanCon> ack danc
17:26:51 <Zakim> DanCon, you wanted to say that agreement based on documents/syntax appeals to me and to say to larry "don't do that"
17:26:52 <sandro> ack DanCon
17:26:52 <mdean-scr> Pat:  can communicate fine despite differences in meaning for "dinner"
17:27:18 <sandro> q?
17:27:21 <mdean-scr> Dan:  agreement based on documents and syntax is appealing
17:27:28 <timbl> q+ to re-introduce the test case
17:27:29 <mdean-scr> Dan:  don't use home page URI to refer to person
17:27:41 <sandro> ack Lar4ry_
17:27:41 <Zakim> Lar4ry_, you wanted to make the point that we should have two contexts for meaning of URIs, because I am not my web page, and yet in some contexts people want to use the URI of my
17:27:44 <Zakim> ... web page to talk about me
17:28:15 <mdean-scr> Larry:  any URI starting with http: has to have dual meaning
17:28:27 <bijan> Hmm. I think there's a conflation of "meaning"
17:28:39 <mdean-scr> Larry:  http protocol meaning is always there
17:28:43 <sandro> q?
17:28:56 <sandro> ack timbl
17:28:56 <Zakim> timbl, you wanted to re-introduce the test case
17:29:20 <mdean-scr> Tim:  without # means document - use Person with homePage URI
17:29:33 <patH> q+ on homepage/name
17:29:37 <mdean-scr> Tim:  use owl:InverseFunctionalProperty
17:29:37 <DanCon> yes, http://...lmm-homepage#larry is intimately connected to what happens when you use the HTTP protocol.
17:30:38 <mdean-scr> Tim:  test case
17:32:08 <mdean-scr> Tim:  test case - web page with tim:apples a good buy - if someone says that they hate your apples, you can't assume apples are being ordered
17:32:25 <mdean-scr> Tim:  ... just because they used a predicate
17:32:40 <mdean-scr> Pat:  problem of allowing comments in predicates to convey meaning
17:33:21 <sandro> q?
17:33:54 <mdean-scr> Tim:  not sufficient for building ontologies for life sciences (e.g. concept of Enzyme)
17:34:21 <mdean-scr> Tim:  want to express than Enzymes and Proteins are distinct
17:34:32 <danbri> A Lurker's Aside (re "people want to use my homepage uri to talk about me"): 100s of people are writing RDF of the form <foaf:Person><foaf:name>Dan Brickley</foaf:name><foaf:homepage><foaf:Document rdf:about="http://rdfweb.org/people/danbri/"><dc:title>DanBri's homepage</dc:title></foaf:Document></foaf:homepage></foaf:Person> ...using OWL to indicate that homepage is inverse-functional. It seems to work fine. We pick out the relevant individuals (the person
17:34:32 <danbri> , the page). We don't confuse the two. The markup is reasonably straightforward...
17:35:17 <mdean-scr> Sandro:  way to capture this slight digression?  irreconcilable differences?
17:35:31 <mdean-scr> Pat:  social vs. formal meaning
17:35:46 <mdean-scr> Sandro:  do comments or other natural language text mean anything?
17:36:01 <sandro> ack JohnBlack
17:36:04 <mdean-scr> Pat:  can we mandate that this meaning has any influence on machinery?
17:36:06 <sandro> ack on 
17:36:17 <sandro> ack homepage/name
17:36:24 <sandro> ack John_Black
17:37:07 <mdean-scr> John Black:  2 contexts here:  how to formalize a useful language vs. how to apply such a language
17:37:28 <mdean-scr> John Black:  visualizing duel between logician and webmaster
17:38:16 <mdean-scr> John:  need to distinguish between these 2 cases
17:38:21 <sandro> ack DanCon
17:38:21 <Zakim> DanCon, you wanted to motivate natural-language comments and "lots of uses of enzyme" and to suggest moving on or something, actually
17:38:31 <timbl> timbl has joined #sw-meaning
17:38:45 <mdean-scr> Sandro:  pop back up to future meetings and process
17:38:52 <sandro> q?
17:39:07 <timbl> Zakim, who is here?
17:39:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, bijan, Mike_Dean, TimBL, DanC, PatH, Masinter, John_Black, PFPS
17:39:09 <Zakim> On IRC I see timbl, pfps, danbri, patH, Lar4ry_, DanCon, mdean-scr, JohnBlack, bijan, RRSAgent, Zakim, sandro
17:39:29 <sandro> ack DanCon
17:39:31 <Zakim> DanCon, you wanted to explore the null hypothesis
17:39:46 <mdean-scr> pfps:  some believe there's nothing useful to be said here
17:39:55 <Lar4ry_> the working group charter is to propose a 'meaning for URIs' for the semantic web
17:40:19 <mdean-scr> perhaps withdraw issue?
17:40:40 <mdean-scr> Pat:  good point somewhere, but keep running into the weeds
17:40:51 <bijan> q+
17:41:32 <mdean-scr> Tim:  could not write it down (because people complain) and just let the right thing happen
17:42:02 <mdean-scr> Tim:  people who buy domain names feel they have the authority to decide what "their" URIs mean
17:42:27 <mdean-scr> Tim:  saying nothing leaves the system open to attack by spammers, lawyers, etc.
17:42:32 <sandro> Tim: People DO beleive in URI ownership.....
17:43:42 <mdean-scr> Pat:  say what you want to say but don't trample on semantic intuitions
17:44:02 <mdean-scr> ?:  suggest pat be editor
17:44:27 <Lar4ry_> I think it's a rathole
17:44:29 <bijan> q-
17:44:41 <mdean-scr> Pat volunteers to write text for TAG
17:44:53 <sandro> ack DanCon
17:44:53 <Zakim> DanCon, you wanted to suggest a straw poll on next steps: anything from "let's meet monday" to "let's go email-only for 3 months" to "let's withdraw the TAG issue"
17:45:09 <sandro> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:45:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, bijan, Mike_Dean, TimBL, DanC, PatH, Masinter, John_Black, PFPS
17:45:27 <mdean-scr> DanC:  w3c technical plenary in france in early march - could get f2f time there
17:45:47 <mdean-scr> Sandro:  can't make march, but would like to continue every few weeks
17:45:56 <Lar4ry_> I think SW probably needs someone to define what URIs mean. I can talk on the phone every couple of weeks, but don't think I can travel for this topic
17:46:01 <mdean-scr> Bijan:  every few weeks OK, indifferent
17:46:16 <DanCon> bijan plans to be in france for the March W3C tech plenary
17:46:24 <Lar4ry_> I'm going to run off now, else I'll miss my next meeting
17:46:28 <mdean-scr> Mike:  comfortable continuing at current place
17:46:33 <DanCon> thx, larry
17:46:34 <sandro> Mike: comfortable at pace we're going
17:46:42 <Lar4ry_> not sure about plenary
17:46:42 <sandro> one sec, Larry?
17:46:48 <Lar4ry_> gotta go bye
17:47:45 <timbl> I am happy to do this level of effort in principle but November is a mess, dec not much better, and emila may work better.
17:47:52 <mdean-scr> DanC:  prefer email only for several months, meet at tech plenary to make sure this doesn't get lost
17:48:16 <sandro> Pat: no travel, this pace is okay.           e-mail only does tend to have it dift.
17:48:19 <mdean-scr> Pat:  transatlantic travel difficult, this pace OK, email tends to drift into nothingness
17:48:53 <mdean-scr> DanC:  need some synchronous event [telecon or irc]
17:49:08 <mdean-scr> John:  every few weeks OK, optimistic that there will be a worthwhile grand synthesis
17:49:32 <mdean-scr> Peter:  depressed by people talking past each other - need something to shoot at to make any progress
17:49:51 <DanCon> what i meant was: an editor "needs" some synchronous event every once in a while...
17:49:54 <mdean-scr> Peter:  return fire that hits is very satisfying
17:49:59 <DanCon> "return fire that hits is very satisfying" -- PFPS
17:50:36 <mdean-scr> Peter:  need proposals on the table
17:51:03 <bijan> +1
17:51:10 <mdean-scr> Peter:  need short text
17:51:28 <mdean-scr> "only need to agree on words" :-)
17:51:35 <DanCon> ack danc
17:51:35 <Zakim> DanCon, you wanted to suggest email-only, with low expectations, thru 1Jan and to suggest email-only, with low expectations, thru 1Jan, when PatH's action to write something is due
17:51:40 <sandro> q?
17:52:06 <mdean-scr> DanC:  tender regrets for Nov/Dec telecons
17:52:24 <mdean-scr> Pat:  will try draft in next couple weeks
17:53:01 <mdean-scr> Sandro:  agreement on a little bit, and then build up
17:53:41 <mdean-scr> DanC:  my attention is elsewhere [Japan AC meeting]
17:53:50 <sandro> Pat: send prose they feel needs to be taken account of.
17:54:23 <mdean-scr> RESOLVED:  take to email
17:55:09 <Zakim> -DanC
17:55:28 <mdean-scr> Bijan:  empirical observations could be useful
17:55:33 <mdean-scr> meeting adjourned
17:55:34 <Zakim> -bijan
17:55:36 <sandro> ADJOURNED
17:55:37 <Zakim> -PatH
17:55:39 <Zakim> -John_Black
17:56:02 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
17:56:03 <Zakim> -TimBL
17:56:03 <Zakim> -Sandro
17:56:04 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
17:56:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see Masinter, PFPS
17:56:05 <Zakim> On IRC I see timbl, pfps, danbri, patH, Lar4ry_, DanCon, mdean-scr, JohnBlack, RRSAgent, Zakim, sandro
17:56:14 <sandro> zakim, drop Masinter
17:56:14 <Zakim> Masinter is being disconnected
17:56:15 <Zakim> -Masinter
18:05:00 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, PFPS, in SW_Meaning()11:30AM
18:05:02 <Zakim> SW_Meaning()11:30AM has ended
18:13:36 <timbl> timbl has left #sw-meaning
18:32:00 <danbri> danbri has left #sw-meaning