IRC log of tagmem on 2004-02-23
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 19:57:47 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
- 19:57:56 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #tagmem
- 19:57:58 [Ian]
- zakim, this is TAG
- 19:57:59 [Zakim]
- Ian, I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be TAG".
- 19:58:03 [Ian]
- zakim, this will be TAG
- 19:58:03 [Zakim]
- ok, Ian; I see TAG_Weekly()2:30PM scheduled to start 28 minutes ago
- 19:59:07 [Zakim]
- TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
- 19:59:15 [Zakim]
- +Stuart
- 19:59:35 [TBray]
- TBray has joined #tagmem
- 19:59:49 [Zakim]
- +DOrchard
- 20:00:00 [DanC_desk]
- DanC_desk has joined #tagmem
- 20:00:07 [timbl]
- timbl has joined #tagmem
- 20:00:26 [Chris]
- Chris has joined #tagmem
- 20:00:27 [TBray]
- zakim, call me
- 20:00:27 [Zakim]
- I am sorry, TBray; I do not know a number for me
- 20:00:35 [TBray]
- zakim, call TBray
- 20:00:35 [Zakim]
- I am sorry, TBray; I do not know a number for TBray
- 20:00:43 [Zakim]
- +Ian
- 20:00:43 [TBray]
- zakim, call TimBray
- 20:00:44 [Zakim]
- I am sorry, TBray; I do not know a number for TimBray
- 20:00:50 [Ian]
- Tim, I'll do that....
- 20:00:55 [TBray]
- thanks
- 20:01:06 [Zakim]
- +Mario
- 20:01:12 [Ian]
- zakim, call TB-TAG
- 20:01:12 [Zakim]
- ok, Ian; the call is being made
- 20:01:13 [Zakim]
- +TB
- 20:01:25 [Zakim]
- +Chris
- 20:01:42 [Zakim]
- +Roy
- 20:01:55 [Stuart]
- zakim, who is here?
- 20:01:55 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Stuart, DOrchard, Ian, Mario, TB, Chris, Roy
- 20:01:56 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see Chris, timbl, DanC_desk, TBray, Zakim, RRSAgent, Stuart, mario, Norm, Ian
- 20:02:00 [Ian]
- TimBray, thanks for offering to scribe.
- 20:02:15 [TBray]
- <scribing>
- 20:02:27 [Zakim]
- +TimBL
- 20:02:55 [Zakim]
- +PCotton
- 20:02:55 [Stuart]
- zakim, who is here?
- 20:02:56 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Stuart, DOrchard, Ian, Mario, TB, Chris, Roy, TimBL, PCotton
- 20:02:57 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see Chris, timbl, DanC_desk, TBray, Zakim, RRSAgent, Stuart, mario, Norm, Ian
- 20:02:58 [Stuart]
- zakim, who is here?
- 20:02:58 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Stuart, DOrchard, Ian, Mario, TB, Chris, Roy, TimBL, PCotton
- 20:03:02 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see Chris, timbl, DanC_desk, TBray, Zakim, RRSAgent, Stuart, mario, Norm, Ian
- 20:03:54 [Chris]
- zakim, who is talking?
- 20:04:05 [Zakim]
- Chris, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Stuart (42%), DOrchard (14%), TimBL (9%)
- 20:04:52 [Zakim]
- +Norm
- 20:05:42 [timbl]
- Zakim, who is here?
- 20:05:42 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Stuart, DOrchard, Ian, Mario, TB, Chris, Roy, TimBL, PCotton, Norm
- 20:05:44 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see Chris, timbl, DanC_desk, TBray, Zakim, RRSAgent, Stuart, mario, Norm, Ian
- 20:05:55 [TBray]
- Roll Call: All - DC
- 20:06:07 [TBray]
- SW: Feb 9 minutes? Anybody look?
- 20:06:09 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2004/02/09-tag-summary.html
- 20:06:11 [TBray]
- PC: Looked fine
- 20:06:20 [TBray]
- RESOLVED accept Feb 9 minutes
- 20:06:22 [Norm]
- NW: Fine by me too
- 20:06:39 [TBray]
- SW: Accept agenda?
- 20:06:44 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2004/02/23-tag.html
- 20:07:05 [Zakim]
- +DanC
- 20:07:33 [Ian]
- zakim, drop DanC
- 20:07:33 [Zakim]
- DanC is being disconnected
- 20:07:34 [Zakim]
- -DanC
- 20:07:36 [Ian]
- Voice mail
- 20:07:57 [TBray]
- RESOLVED to accept agenda
- 20:08:09 [TBray]
- next meeting: F2F March 2nd
- 20:08:16 [TBray]
- Regrets: TB, TBL
- 20:08:43 [Ian]
- q+
- 20:08:48 [Zakim]
- +DanC
- 20:09:06 [TBray]
- IJ: we have phone-in capability for France F2F
- 20:09:14 [TBray]
- IJ: Schedule TBD
- 20:09:23 [TBray]
- SW: propose we don't meet March 8, next mtg 15th
- 20:09:29 [TBray]
- So RESOLVED
- 20:09:47 [TBray]
- SW: PC August/Ottawa?
- 20:09:53 [TBray]
- PC: Unanimous support, consider it on
- 20:10:08 [TBray]
- SW: Liaison planning for Tech Plenary
- 20:10:34 [Stuart]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/02/TAG-Liasons
- 20:10:59 [Roy]
- Roy has joined #tagmem
- 20:10:59 [TBray]
- SW: SVG late Monday, could come forward if helpful to SVG
- 20:11:14 [TBray]
- CL: looks fine at the moment
- 20:11:22 [TBray]
- SW: Tue: F2F, with observers
- 20:11:33 [TBray]
- SW: Tue PM liaisons with Core and Schema
- 20:11:47 [TBray]
- SW: Wed plenary, Thu plenar with i18n and WSDL
- 20:11:57 [Chris]
- q+ to offer to be atthe wsd-wg meeting if needed
- 20:11:58 [TBray]
- ... etc
- 20:12:13 [TBray]
- SW: please tell who's going to be at each one of these
- 20:12:15 [TBray]
- ack Ian
- 20:12:16 [Ian]
- q-
- 20:12:27 [TBray]
- DC: interested in Schema, unavailable on Monday
- 20:12:47 [TBray]
- DC: not avail Fri AM
- 20:13:00 [Chris]
- I should probably try to slip out of SVG tues early pm for the xml core
- 20:13:11 [TBray]
- SW: wants CL & DC @ i18n liaison
- 20:13:20 [Ian]
- Regrets from IJ on Monday, Thursday, and Friday morning
- 20:13:54 [DanC_desk]
- yeah verily
- 20:13:59 [TBray]
- PC: Thanks to SW for all this stick-handling
- 20:14:00 [Norm]
- +1
- 20:14:03 [TBray]
- +1
- 20:14:07 [Roy]
- /me +1
- 20:14:07 [timbl]
- +100
- 20:14:17 [TBray]
- SW: Tech Plenary day
- 20:14:21 [Chris]
- Stuart++
- 20:14:36 [Ian]
- stuart++
- 20:15:23 [TBray]
- SW: will open with 10 minutes, DC will do namespace docs...
- 20:15:27 [TBray]
- DC: some risk for DC
- 20:15:59 [TBray]
- SW: idea is content-light, discussion-heavy
- 20:16:13 [TBray]
- s/content-light/presentation-light/
- 20:16:39 [DanC_desk]
- (TBray, maybe I'll call you to think a little bit about this namespace documents discussion)
- 20:16:44 [TBray]
- SW: DO to motivate extensibility/versioning
- 20:16:51 [TBray]
- DO: short pres showing where we're at
- 20:17:04 [TBray]
- DO: motivate discussion by asking hard question
- 20:17:28 [TBray]
- DO: e.g. should Schema 1.1 fix this prob, should we introduce "must-understand" somewhere
- 20:17:39 [DanC_desk]
- sounds good, DO
- 20:17:51 [TBray]
- DO: will write up in email form, send to group to see if appropriately motivating
- 20:17:59 [TBray]
- SW: also, web identifiers
- 20:18:22 [TBray]
- TB: not enough time for three discussions
- 20:18:29 [TBray]
- SW: can RF motivate identifiers?
- 20:18:40 [TBray]
- RF: yes, but didn't understand hints. Given schedule...
- 20:18:48 [TBray]
- RF: i.e. an indication of what I should prepare
- 20:19:24 [TBray]
- DO: suggests complex identifiers for multi-processing-step docs
- 20:19:53 [TBray]
- TB: have 2 discussions not 3
- 20:20:26 [TBray]
- Drop namespace docs?
- 20:20:28 [TBray]
- TB: boring
- 20:20:32 [TBray]
- DC: audience still interested
- 20:20:43 [TBray]
- SW: Mechanics? queue handling?
- 20:21:16 [TBray]
- SW: I will aim to moderate, pick questions from floor & panel
- 20:21:47 [TBray]
- SW: done for now?
- 20:22:00 [TBray]
- SW: our own F2F agenda... only have a half-day
- 20:22:24 [TBray]
- any other must-do topics?
- 20:22:38 [TBray]
- =============================
- 20:22:47 [TBray]
- SW: Chris, want to speak to actions?
- 20:23:14 [TBray]
- CL: please close actions on action-item list that include links to emails that closed it
- 20:23:20 [TBray]
- SW: liaise with Ian
- 20:23:35 [TBray]
- IJ: TAG hasn't agreed they're closed maybe
- 20:23:41 [Norm]
- Ian: I believe I've finished three of my four actions (all except asking the schema) and I should have a fifth/second: responding to Hammond's last call comment
- 20:23:42 [TBray]
- CL: request action triage to close those that should be
- 20:23:52 [Ian]
- --
- 20:23:55 [TBray]
- =========================
- 20:24:06 [TBray]
- SW: QnameAsID, close to accepting
- 20:24:19 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids-2004-01-14
- 20:25:08 [TBray]
- SW: Pending input from TB & TBL
- 20:25:19 [TBray]
- CL: I looked at it again, didn't see problems
- 20:25:40 [TBray]
- TBL: don't want to hold it up
- 20:26:07 [TBray]
- TB: likewise
- 20:27:08 [TBray]
- ... discussion trying to re-establish context...
- 20:27:10 [Chris]
- q+ to raise a non-holdup technical point
- 20:27:13 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2004/02/09-tag-summary.html
- 20:27:22 [Ian]
- [See comments at that meeting from TBL]
- 20:27:40 [DanC_desk]
- "[timbl]
- 20:27:40 [DanC_desk]
- On Qname finding: I think NW should make more of the algorithm that one uses to determine the binding when looking at elems and attributes."
- 20:28:04 [TBray]
- q+
- 20:29:17 [timbl]
- "There is no single, accepted way to convert QNames into {URI, local-name} pairs or vice versa."
- 20:29:36 [timbl]
- para n-3 in 4.1
- 20:29:39 [TBray]
- CL: Revisiting this point...
- 20:31:03 [Chris]
- xptr fails to inherit scope into the xpointer
- 20:31:05 [TBray]
- NW: if you use a prefix in an xpointer and there is no xmlns thingie in the xpointer, you can't use the in-scope prefixes fo the xml doc
- 20:31:17 [Chris]
- ach chris
- 20:31:23 [timbl]
- q+ different case - not XML really frabnnkly xpointer i snot XML
- 20:31:24 [Chris]
- ack chris
- 20:31:25 [Zakim]
- Chris, you wanted to offer to be atthe wsd-wg meeting if needed and to raise a non-holdup technical point
- 20:31:28 [Stuart]
- ack Chris
- 20:31:32 [timbl]
- q+ to say: different case - not XML really frabnnkly xpointer i snot XML
- 20:31:55 [TBray]
- TB: seems like NW has a factual statement of what things are like
- 20:32:04 [TBray]
- TB: are we inclined to criticize it?
- 20:32:08 [TBray]
- DC: seems that what XPointer did is right
- 20:32:34 [TBray]
- TBL: XPointer is a mini-language can be used anywhere... nothing to do with XML in principle
- 20:32:51 [TBray]
- q+
- 20:32:51 [Chris]
- if they had done it differently, you would need to rewrite an xpointer to move it to a different context
- 20:33:02 [TBray]
- ack TBray
- 20:33:04 [TBray]
- q+
- 20:33:08 [DanC_desk]
- quite, chris
- 20:33:32 [TBray]
- TBL: problem would be if in another XML vocab e.g. WSDL they had another way of mapping...
- 20:33:45 [TBray]
- TBL: e.g. by looking in a schema
- 20:33:57 [Norm]
- q+
- 20:34:20 [TBray]
- TBL: there is an extra cost .. if you take Norm's statement literally this suggests that there shouldn't be a single way
- 20:34:30 [Chris]
- q+ to relate another way to resolve them (that was rejected, and rightly)
- 20:34:32 [TBray]
- TBL: lower cost if everyone uses the same one
- 20:35:00 [mario]
- q+ to say: isn't the ns non-inheritance thing of XPtr conflicting with the inheritance mechanism present in XPath
- 20:35:37 [TBray]
- NW: Don't think I said that. Should I modify to say that this is commonly used, and should be used
- 20:36:02 [Chris]
- I see we are now getting discussion on this doc, brought on by the imminent decision to approve the finding
- 20:36:19 [Norm]
- lol
- 20:36:30 [Stuart]
- q?
- 20:36:31 [DanC_desk]
- why is that remarkable, chris?
- 20:36:57 [Norm]
- q-
- 20:37:11 [timbl]
- It is not as though we have a solution here.
- 20:37:12 [TBray]
- TB: in the context of XML docs, it would be nuts to invent a new way of doing it, so the finding should say that
- 20:37:19 [Stuart]
- q- timbl
- 20:37:25 [Stuart]
- q- TBray
- 20:37:25 [TBray]
- in particular it's OK for XPointer because it exists outside the XML context...
- 20:37:34 [TBray]
- and the finding could usefully call that out too.
- 20:37:46 [TBray]
- e.g. take XPointer as an example
- 20:38:06 [TBray]
- CL: This came up in the SVG development
- 20:38:32 [TBray]
- CL: we had an attribute that pointed to another to animate it; could be in a different subtree/doc
- 20:38:51 [TBray]
- CL: Question is: in which context do we do this, the pointer's context or the target's context
- 20:39:00 [Stuart]
- q?
- 20:39:08 [Stuart]
- ack Chris
- 20:39:08 [Zakim]
- Chris, you wanted to relate another way to resolve them (that was rejected, and rightly)
- 20:39:09 [TBray]
- CL: and in this case, the right thing to do was in the context where the prefix actually was
- 20:39:23 [Stuart]
- ack mario
- 20:39:23 [Zakim]
- mario, you wanted to say: isn't the ns non-inheritance thing of XPtr conflicting with the inheritance mechanism present in XPath
- 20:39:59 [TBray]
- MJ: when I embed in an XPath... the xpath inherits but an xpointer doesn't
- 20:40:06 [TBray]
- NW: but then XPath expressions aren't URIs
- 20:40:14 [TBray]
- PC: and XPath doesn't define that, XSLT does
- 20:40:47 [timbl]
- q+ to quantify the cost: The ability (or not) to be able to re-generate prefixes, to be able to determine two document fragments to be the same, without application knowledge, but with schema knowledge.
- 20:40:52 [Chris]
- reminds myself to ceck what dom3 xpath does by way of a host language
- 20:40:54 [TBray]
- NW: XPath context has to be init'ed, XSLT & XQuery use mappings in containing doc
- 20:41:31 [TBray]
- q?
- 20:41:38 [TBray]
- q+
- 20:41:39 [Chris]
- it might b euseful to capture some of these cases into the finding
- 20:41:53 [Chris]
- if its unclear to us, its unclear to others too
- 20:42:03 [TBray]
- TBL: might be useful to look at some of these cases and discuss the cost
- 20:42:50 [Stuart]
- q?
- 20:42:52 [Zakim]
- -Ian
- 20:42:54 [TBray]
- TBL: might be able to rebind prefixes.....
- 20:42:54 [Stuart]
- ack timbl
- 20:42:54 [Zakim]
- timbl, you wanted to quantify the cost: The ability (or not) to be able to re-generate prefixes, to be able to determine two document fragments to be the same, without application
- 20:42:57 [Zakim]
- ... knowledge, but with schema knowledge.
- 20:43:00 [TBray]
- NW: no; can't rebind prefixes in the general case
- 20:43:03 [DanC_desk]
- (I gave up hope on rebinding prefixes long ago)
- 20:43:10 [Zakim]
- +Ian
- 20:43:48 [TBray]
- TBL: can in some cases
- 20:43:57 [TBray]
- NW: that special cases isn't large enough to call out
- 20:44:23 [TBray]
- NW: will amend the wording from sim ple statement of fact to a recommendation to do the right thing
- 20:44:31 [TBray]
- NW: and will have that done before Sat
- 20:44:41 [timbl]
- (I rebind prefixes all the time in RDF of course)
- 20:44:45 [Stuart]
- ack TBray
- 20:44:55 [Chris]
- +1 for Norm's suggestion
- 20:45:05 [TBray]
- TB: wordy +1
- 20:45:21 [TBray]
- ACTION Norm to rewrite simple statement
- 20:45:24 [DanC_desk]
- thanks, again, norm.
- 20:45:59 [TBray]
- ============================
- 20:46:09 [TBray]
- On to ContentOverride
- 20:46:14 [Roy]
- I have read "Authoritative Metadata" draft 18 Feb 2004 and all of my concerns have been addressed. The document looks great. Thanks Ian!
- 20:46:20 [TBray]
- see http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20040218.html
- 20:46:56 [TBray]
- SW: Anyone else seen it?
- 20:47:00 [TBray]
- DC, TB: prepared to defer to Roy
- 20:47:20 [Zakim]
- -Ian
- 20:47:21 [Chris]
- looks good to me
- 20:47:26 [Norm]
- yes
- 20:47:28 [Zakim]
- +Ian
- 20:47:30 [TBray]
- SW: Resolve to accept?
- 20:47:42 [TBray]
- RESOLVED to accept that finding
- 20:48:11 [TBray]
- IJ: now I publish it, right?
- 20:48:30 [TBray]
- IJ: wants some mods to webarch based on the good work done here
- 20:48:34 [Chris]
- 4.2 Self-describing data and Risk of Inconsistency
- 20:48:34 [DanC_desk]
- hmm... arch doc changes? such as?
- 20:48:41 [Chris]
- is very good, glad to see that
- 20:49:36 [TBray]
- ----------------------------
- 20:49:40 [TBray]
- NamespaceDocument-8
- 20:50:54 [TBray]
- DC: I sent email to address comments
- 20:51:10 [Stuart]
- q?
- 20:51:56 [DanC_desk]
- (my last message on this issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0026.html)
- 20:52:09 [TBray]
- TB: also unconvinced by pleas for XLink version
- 20:52:21 [TBray]
- DC: asked for pointers to use cases for XLink version, thinks people sent them
- 20:52:23 [Stuart]
- q?
- 20:53:01 [DanC_desk]
- yup, 0026 points to my XSLT/RDDL work
- 20:53:46 [timbl]
- q?
- 20:53:56 [TBray]
- TB: missing PC's action item
- 20:54:05 [TBray]
- TB: no interest in a normative RDDL note?
- 20:54:20 [TBray]
- PC: Wrong. AC asked us to turn it into a note & give it normative status
- 20:54:31 [timbl]
- and/or give it
- 20:54:36 [TBray]
- CL: and we decided that RDDL wasn't always appropriate
- 20:54:51 [TBray]
- DC: but that doesn't change the status of RDDL, which we officially think is useful
- 20:55:02 [timbl]
- q+ to mention push-back agiuanst TAG doing rec track spec here.
- 20:55:05 [DanC_desk]
- (not officially yet, actually)
- 20:55:08 [TBray]
- PC: and the direction from the AC was that they wanted something to point to
- 20:55:28 [TBray]
- q+ to volunteer what work I'm prepared to do
- 20:55:33 [DanC_desk]
- (ah yes... bristol decision makes it official, I suppose)
- 20:55:49 [Stuart]
- ack timbl
- 20:55:49 [Zakim]
- timbl, you wanted to mention push-back agiuanst TAG doing rec track spec here.
- 20:55:51 [TBray]
- TBL: within the team, there's been pushback against TAG doing rec-track work
- 20:56:13 [TBray]
- TBL: members can't join in at will
- 20:56:40 [Stuart]
- ack TBray
- 20:56:40 [Zakim]
- TBray, you wanted to volunteer what work I'm prepared to do
- 20:57:11 [TBray]
- TB: is prepared to go on editing RDDL as long as it stays reasonably simple
- 20:57:14 [Stuart]
- q+
- 20:57:57 [TBray]
- PC: discomfort with team-only discussions; would like team concerns reported so he can address them, e.g. by pointing to our charter where it says we can do rec-track work
- 20:58:08 [Stuart]
- ack Stuart
- 20:58:17 [TBray]
- SW: we'd only really discussed taking this forward as a NOTE
- 20:58:39 [timbl]
- Ok
- 20:59:15 [Chris]
- suggest TimBray takes it if he is motivated
- 20:59:49 [TBray]
- TB: we need the finding, Paul's not getting it done, does somebody else get it?
- 20:59:52 [timbl]
- PC: To motivate the use of one or more formats.
- 21:00:01 [TBray]
- DC: not interesting because webarch says enough
- 21:00:09 [DanC_desk]
- (finding could talk about content negotiation, etc.)
- 21:00:11 [TBray]
- PC: finding would provide more motivation and discuss alternatives
- 21:00:25 [timbl]
- q+ to wonder about eth background to GRDDL document DanC wrote (pointer?)
- 21:00:49 [DanC_desk]
- I don't think my GRDDL background document has much to offer on issue 8. it's more on issue 35
- 21:00:52 [TBray]
- see http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#namespace-docs
- 21:01:08 [TBray]
- PC: but if webarch has enough, maybe we don't need finding?
- 21:01:37 [TBray]
- TBL: could build DC's GRDDL stuff into a finding?
- 21:02:15 [TBray]
- DC: yes it's a finding, but on issue 35 not 8
- 21:02:19 [timbl]
- Ok, I accept that issues 35 and 8 have small overlap
- 21:02:48 [TBray]
- PC: will write something for Friday so as to get on F2F agenda,
- 21:02:55 [timbl]
- Maybe we should drop the finding, if the arch doc actually covers it.
- 21:02:59 [TBray]
- PC: it'll be an outline-form thing, if people like it we'lll add the meat
- 21:03:32 [TBray]
- TBL: this really worgh doing, not unnec work for PC?
- 21:03:37 [TBray]
- PC, DC: seems worthwhile
- 21:03:52 [timbl]
- I hope someone brings a video camera to the face-face, now TimBray and I will neither be there.
- 21:03:59 [TBray]
- DC: people using XLink version, are we worried about that?
- 21:04:15 [Chris]
- who was using it? eric van der vlist, as i recall
- 21:04:26 [TBray]
- Just Eric as far as I know
- 21:04:31 [DanC_desk]
- [[[
- 21:04:32 [DanC_desk]
- In the meantime, I think that http://examplotron.org,http://xsltunit.org and even http://rddl.org/ (version 1) are goodexamples.
- 21:04:33 [DanC_desk]
- ]]
- 21:05:01 [TBray]
- Henry Thomson also using it....
- 21:06:01 [Stuart]
- Henry's message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Jan/0044.html
- 21:06:23 [Ian]
- TBray: There are some benefits to the xlink version, but also more complex.
- 21:06:48 [TBray]
- TB: it's a cost/benefit trade-off
- 21:07:10 [TBray]
- TBL: if we make RDDL official, would JBorden make some commitments
- 21:07:37 [TBray]
- TBL: we want a persistence commitmment, along the lines of keep it commitment or sign over to W3C, or to a trust or some such.
- 21:07:47 [TBray]
- TB: ACTION TBray to check with Jonathan
- 21:08:36 [TBray]
- TB: anyone here want to go back to XLink?
- 21:08:51 [TBray]
- CL: it had more deployment than we thought, and we can make RDF equally well from eiither
- 21:09:39 [TBray]
- DC: TBray, do plan to change RDDL.org to use the attribute version?
- 21:09:49 [TBray]
- TB: yes
- 21:10:50 [TBray]
- TBL: will the namespace doc at RDDL.org enable fetching the RDF
- 21:10:58 [TBray]
- TB: yes
- 21:11:10 [TBray]
- DC: mime-type issue is nontrivial
- 21:11:32 [TBray]
- CL: if you serve as xhtml+xml, should be OK in modern browser
- 21:11:40 [DanC_desk]
- (anybody got a handy test page for application/xhtml+xml ?)
- 21:11:48 [TBray]
- PC: serve as what?
- 21:12:02 [TBray]
- CL: application/xhtml+xml
- 21:12:13 [DanC_desk]
- http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/media-types/
- 21:13:03 [TBray]
- DC, CL: it's OK to use foreign namespace attributes in an xhtml+xml doc
- 21:14:31 [TBray]
- q+ to get unlost
- 21:15:20 [Stuart]
- ack TBray
- 21:15:20 [Zakim]
- TBray, you wanted to get unlost
- 21:15:24 [TBray]
- TB: I favor the shorter attribute-based syntax
- 21:16:01 [TBray]
- TBL: can mention previous syntax?
- 21:16:11 [Ian]
- ----
- 21:16:21 [Ian]
- PC to give points for potential finding
- 21:16:35 [Ian]
- TB to continue working on draft and to get statement from Jonathan re: persistence at rddl.org
- 21:16:46 [Ian]
- TB to add pointer to previous syntax in the Note
- 21:16:48 [Ian]
- --
- 21:17:09 [DanC_desk]
- (we talked about the syntax of the http://rddl.org/ document changing too, but that can be asynchronous)
- 21:18:01 [TBray]
- PC: do we now go back and change the language in webarch about alternate forms
- 21:18:13 [TBray]
- CL: yes, maybe
- 21:18:23 [TBray]
- DC: yes, but in some cases the Owl doc is optimal
- 21:18:28 [TBray]
- SW: likes the Bristol compromise
- 21:18:37 [DanC_desk]
- yes, what's in the arch doc is right
- 21:18:50 [TBray]
- TBL: likes the status quo
- 21:19:29 [TBray]
- =======================
- 21:19:34 [Stuart]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004Feb/0000.html
- 21:19:41 [TBray]
- SW: Re: Strickler's comments
- 21:19:53 [Stuart]
- Section 4.5.4:
- 21:20:16 [Stuart]
- It is disappointing to see the TAG continuing to promote the idea
- 21:20:17 [Stuart]
- that any semantics associated with a URI used as a namespace name
- 21:20:17 [Stuart]
- has any relation whatsoever to the semantics of terms grounded in
- 21:20:17 [Stuart]
- that namespace.
- 21:22:22 [TBray]
- DC: disagrees with the notion that nothing more need be said, because saying nothing has had negative consequences
- 21:22:53 [TBray]
- TB: Patrick's position has for a long time been that namespaces are pure syntax/punctuation
- 21:23:13 [TBray]
- PC: seems to disagree with our opinion that human-readable doc is useful
- 21:23:40 [TBray]
- ... discussion too fast for scribe...
- 21:24:03 [TBray]
- is it the case that namespace is just another ersource
- 21:24:17 [TBray]
- DC: I don't think we disagree with him, he's just saying that we don't want to discuss this at length
- 21:24:26 [TBray]
- DC: but we think discussing it at length is useful
- 21:24:30 [Ian]
- DC: Patrick's point has technical merit; but there is social benefit to explanation.
- 21:24:47 [TBray]
- q+
- 21:26:04 [Stuart]
- Defn of NS Document from Webarch: Namespace document
- 21:26:04 [Stuart]
- The resource identified by a namespace URI.
- 21:26:31 [Chris]
- sounds like agreement to me
- 21:26:59 [DanC_desk]
- hmm... indeed, the glossary entry is goofy
- 21:27:21 [Ian]
- DC: Fix - it's what you get back when you dereference.
- 21:27:44 [TBray]
- TB: strongly disagree with PS's paragraph beginning "Furthermore, because..."; I think that when you use a URI as a namespace name, you've created a resource and you better make sure it has something to do with the vocaublary
- 21:27:58 [TBray]
- ... discussion of the glossary entry....
- 21:28:12 [TBray]
- TB: if you disagree with glossary entry, provide alternate text
- 21:30:53 [Chris]
- the detailed reading is indeed gratifying
- 21:30:56 [Zakim]
- -Norm
- 21:30:59 [TBray]
- ADJOURN
- 21:31:03 [Zakim]
- -Roy
- 21:31:05 [Ian]
- RRSAgent, stop