IRC log of tagmem on 2004-03-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:56:13 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
19:57:58 [Chris]
zakim, dial chris-617
19:57:58 [Zakim]
ok, Chris; the call is being made
19:57:59 [Zakim]
TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
19:58:00 [Zakim]
19:59:12 [Zakim]
19:59:50 [Zakim]
19:59:53 [DanC]
DanC has joined #tagmem
20:00:49 [Chris]
can people hear me okay?
20:01:07 [Ian]
20:01:19 [Zakim]
20:01:27 [Zakim]
20:01:33 [mario]
zakim, ??p2 is mario
20:01:33 [Zakim]
+mario; got it
20:01:38 [Zakim]
20:01:44 [mario]
zakim, mute me
20:01:44 [Zakim]
mario should now be muted
20:01:45 [DanC] ok by me, fyi
20:02:01 [mario]
also ok with me.
20:02:13 [Ian]
Regrets: PC
20:02:14 [Stuart]
and me to... that should be quick!
20:02:18 [Ian]
20:02:36 [Stuart]
zakim, who is here?
20:02:36 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Chris, Ian, Stuart, Norm, mario (muted), DanC
20:02:37 [Zakim]
On IRC I see DanC, RRSAgent, Stuart, Zakim, Chris, timbl, mario, Norm, Ian
20:02:54 [Zakim]
20:03:04 [timbl]
<> closes [].
20:03:09 [mario]
zakim, unmute me
20:03:09 [Zakim]
mario should no longer be muted
20:03:45 [Ian]
Roll call: TBL, IJ, SW, MJ, NW, DC
20:04:13 [Ian]
Roll call: TBL, IJ, SW, MJ, NW, DC, CL. Regrets: PC. MIssing: RF
20:04:19 [Ian]
Proposed to accept minutes of 22 March teleconf
20:04:29 [Ian]
20:04:34 [Zakim]
20:04:35 [Ian]
Resolved to accept.
20:04:41 [Ian]
This agenda:
20:04:51 [Ian]
20:05:24 [Ian]
Action IJ: Remove a /me comment per SW request in the minutes.
20:07:02 [Ian]
[agenda review]
20:07:16 [Roy]
Roy has joined #tagmem
20:07:24 [Ian]
SW: Regrets for next week.
20:07:46 [Ian]
DC: I can chair next week.
20:07:51 [Ian]
SW: Work with IJ to get agenda out.
20:08:00 [Ian]
SW: Reminder no meeting 12 April.
20:08:21 [Ian]
20:08:28 [Ian]
May ftf meeting
20:08:30 [Ian]
Meeting page:
20:08:32 [Ian]
20:08:34 [DanC]
mtg pg
20:09:01 [DanC]
I recommend the Kendal hotel.
20:09:07 [DanC]
Kendall Hotel
20:09:08 [Ian]
+1 to Kendall hotel
20:09:26 [Ian]
Cheaper: Prospect Place
20:09:48 [Ian]
John Jeffries House
20:09:50 [DanC]
(I've stayed at the John Jeffry's house... I recall it being inexpensive, but I'm not sure)
20:10:07 [Norm]
Yikes. $179 is painful
20:11:32 [DanC]
yeah, a phone number of somebody to call on the meeting page is a good idea.
20:11:33 [Chris]
is there an address for the faculty club
20:11:38 [Ian]
Action IJ: Ask W3C Team for more info about suggested hotels.
20:12:08 [Ian]
20:12:17 [Ian]
2.1 Top Level Domains used as filters (.xxx, .mobile, etc.)
20:12:17 [Ian]
See email from Danny Weitzner and email about timing expectations.
20:12:57 [Ian]
.mobile, .sex
20:13:03 [timbl]
.xxx and .mobile
20:13:26 [Ian]
SW: Why did DJW bring this to us?
20:13:44 [Ian]
DC: He suspects this is a bad idea and he thinks that if the TAG says it's a bad idea, that might have an impact.
20:13:58 [timbl]
1. economic arguments
20:13:59 [Ian]
DC: There's a comment period open right now (so some time-sensitivity)
20:14:14 [Chris]
no - blocking .sex does not block all sex sites. finding them is no easier.
20:14:21 [timbl]
2. architectural problems - putting info into a URL
20:14:51 [Ian]
DC: I think that the market will cause this to fail.
20:14:53 [Chris]
.tv is actually a country code
20:14:58 [timbl]
20:15:00 [Ian]
DC: E.g., only a few hundred ".tv" domains.
20:15:09 [mario]
More on the topic:
20:15:09 [Chris]
but yes it is sold as a novelty for television
20:15:34 [timbl]
Persistence decreased by arbitrary boundaries
20:15:39 [timbl]
Device Independence reduced
20:15:44 [Stuart]
20:15:48 [Ian]
DC: Subdividing internet doesn't scale. If you have .mobile and .sex, what do you about sex for mobile devices?
20:15:49 [Stuart]
ack timbl
20:15:49 [Chris]
however there is no requirement to have only television stuff under .tv for example
20:16:21 [Ian]
TBL: If you have .travel, then assume that you'll have a "dot" for every rubrique in the yellow pages. If you follow Kant, you end up dividing up the Web.
20:16:28 [Ian]
TBL: You are imposing a centralized ontology.
20:16:36 [Ian]
TBL: We could write a book on why that won't work.
20:16:46 [Ian]
TBL: We could document the fact that the Web only worked because it DOES NOT have that.
20:17:02 [Ian]
TBL: There are a number of systems pre-dating the Web that didn't work because people didn't agree with the ontologies of others.
20:17:22 [Ian]
TBL: Some arch problems: persistence degrades. E.g., as a resource becomes more general, information will be moved out of a ".mobile" domain.
20:17:42 [Ian]
TBL: Similarly, some information may be labeled adult and then later non-adult (e.g., "articles" in Playboy <wink>)
20:17:57 [Ian]
TBL: There are philosophical arguments - who defines what is "mobile"? what is "porn"?
20:18:47 [Ian]
TBL: We've been through a huge discussion on this. PICS is the result of this discussion. Some people are happy to be labeled xxx, but others (larger group) that don't want to be labeled xxx but others want to label them as xxx - trying to manage this internationally is very difficult.
20:18:58 [Chris]
q+ to talk about .mobile, and about the cultural relativity of 'obscene'
20:19:17 [Ian]
TBL: E.g., dewey decimal system does not scale to the size of the Web.
20:19:39 [Stuart]
20:19:43 [Ian]
TBL: (1) persistence (2) social unmanageability (3) economic argument
20:20:01 [Ian]
TBL: People have paid a lot for domain real-estate. By creating a new TLD you are changing the zoning.
20:20:13 [Ian]
TBL: You may have to buy hundreds of domain names all of a sudden.
20:20:30 [mario]
q+ to note that also TLDs like .ag for public owned companies are not accepted that much by the marked. Additionally, people are not awaiting finding company related information at e.g. the first place. Normally, these domains are just seconding a .com one.
20:20:38 [Ian]
TBL: Thus, these proposals make it tough to maintain a trademark, and add cost to businesses as well as destabilize the DNS.
20:20:39 [Stuart]
ack Chris
20:20:39 [Zakim]
Chris, you wanted to talk about .mobile, and about the cultural relativity of 'obscene'
20:20:49 [Ian]
CL: I agree about the cultural relativity argument.
20:21:11 [Ian]
CL: There are lots of mobile companies pushing for this. Designed for profit.
20:21:22 [timbl]
20:21:27 [Ian]
CL: Their proposal says that "The Web is for desktops." Which is very dangerous.
20:21:28 [DanC]
ah; that's a comment I could endorse: "the .mobile proposal is misinformed"
20:21:40 [Ian]
DC: Yes, let's please send that comment.
20:21:45 [timbl]
+1 to problems wiyh "the web is for desktops" argument!
20:22:02 [Stuart]
ack mario
20:22:02 [Zakim]
mario, you wanted to note that also TLDs like .ag for public owned companies are not accepted that much by the marked. Additionally, people are not awaiting finding company related
20:22:02 [timbl]
It flies in the face of device independence
20:22:05 [Zakim]
... information at e.g. the first place. Normally, these domains are just seconding a .com one.
20:22:08 [Chris]
simmilar for example
20:22:17 [Ian]
MJ: Market shows reluctance to accept special domains for first domain name in the market.
20:22:22 [Chris]
20:22:38 [Ian]
MJ: Something like .ag is often used as a secondary domain; usually people use .com anyway.
20:23:16 [DanC]
(I'm confused about how for-profit TLDs ever got on the map)
20:23:18 [Chris]
20:23:52 [Chris]
exact same as
20:23:54 [DanC]
20:24:21 [Chris]
although getting a raw .fr is very hard because you have to show you are a french company
20:24:31 [Ian]
DC: I'd like CL to pursue the mobile question, whatever we do.
20:24:46 [Ian]
DC: E.g., CL writes three paras, the TAG endorses.
20:25:43 [Ian]
DC: I'd like CL to send this to the official comments list forthwith.
20:26:14 [Stuart]
20:26:14 [DanC]
20:27:51 [Ian]
SW: At end of RFC3675, Donald recommends rating services (PICS)
20:27:54 [DanC]
(wow... it's not easy at all to find the comment target email address)
20:28:25 [DanC]
20:28:49 [Chris]
if i have an action, can it be crisply stated so that it can be closed when i have done it?
20:29:15 [Chris]
draft to www-tag and send to (wherever) is ok as an action
20:29:26 [Ian]
DC: "Public comment period begins 31 March"
20:29:33 [DanC]
"A public comment period will begin 31 March 2004, 23:59 UTC and will last for one month. Comments will be posted in a web-based forum. Instructions will be published when the comment period opens." --
20:29:37 [mario]
zakim, mute me
20:29:37 [Zakim]
mario should now be muted
20:29:54 [Ian]
[End date 30 april]
20:30:20 [Stuart]
20:31:54 [Ian]
Action CL: Send a draft to www-tag explaining why the .mobile proposal is misinformed.
20:32:02 [Chris]
20:32:51 [DanC]
... and, should the tag agree, to send it to ICANN
20:33:10 [Ian]
20:34:10 [Ian]
CL: Should we follow up on other topics like .sex?
20:34:59 [Ian]
TBL: I think it would be appropriate for the TAG to get into the technology and society area. For instance, to get into the arguments discussed when PICS was developed - e.g., centralized categories are socially unacceptable. This was the argument behind distributed whitelist/blacklists.
20:35:15 [Ian]
TBL: Do we think it's out of scope for the TAG because it's too societal?
20:35:21 [Ian]
DC: I think in scope. Just not inspired.
20:35:30 [Ian]
TBL: Could we endorse something that DJW has written up.
20:35:41 [Ian]
DC: Yes, though I would have to see it first.
20:35:55 [Ian]
TBL: Can we ask DJW to address the filtering issue if we address the device-independence issue?
20:36:21 [Ian]
SW: Yes, the TAG could, after review, endorse something that Danny has proposed.
20:36:42 [Ian]
TBL: We could publish something small that points to text (or take it over).
20:37:06 [Ian]
Action IJ: Talk to DJW about sending a proposal to the TAG (focusing on social issues) that the TAG could review and possibly endorse.
20:37:41 [mario]
zakim, unmute me
20:37:41 [Zakim]
mario should no longer be muted
20:37:42 [Ian]
20:37:48 [Ian]
LC Issues
20:38:00 [Ian]
No progress: SW, NW
20:38:03 [Ian]
Annotated spec:
20:38:04 [Stuart]
20:38:12 [Ian]
No progress: SW, NW, MJ
20:38:14 [mario]
zakim, mute me
20:38:14 [Zakim]
mario should now be muted
20:39:13 [DanC]
(actually, I sent pat a "thanks for the comments; please stand by" reply)
20:39:28 [Ian]
20:39:32 [Ian]
Pat Hayes comments
20:39:58 [Ian]
20:40:18 [Ian]
[Meaning of key terms like identifier, resource, representation]
20:40:46 [Ian]
SW: I agree that we use "identify" in both sense.
20:41:03 [Ian]
SW: I was sympathetic to his comments.
20:41:07 [Ian]
DC: THis is the "myth of names and addresses"
20:41:11 [Ian]
DC: Get used to it.
20:41:35 [Ian]
RF: If you look in the dictionary, the term has both definitions. We are using in the descriptive sense (in which both meanings are legit).
20:41:42 [Norm]
20:42:32 [Ian]
NW: I was sympathetic to PH's arguments for many years then decided that's not the way the world is, so time to move on.
20:43:00 [DanC]
(I haven't read his comments very closely, but based on Stuart's summary, I've heard similar arguments many^7 times)
20:43:24 [Ian]
TBL: I think PH has hit on description of the semantic Web.
20:43:38 [Ian]
TBL: By confusing his meanings C and D, we create the Web. That's the Web.
20:43:48 [Ian]
TBL: That's what makes the Web the Web.
20:43:53 [Ian]
RF: I agree with TBL on that.
20:44:16 [Ian]
TBL: PH's first sentence includes the word "conflict". I think he's binding it to disjoint sets in his mind (in his own ontology).
20:45:25 [Ian]
SW: Some assertions that we make in our good practice notes, he asserts, make good sense in one world, but are crazy/meaningless in the other world.
20:45:39 [Ian]
q+ to mention another issue about people/agents
20:46:37 [Stuart]
20:46:48 [Stuart]
ack Ian
20:46:48 [Zakim]
Ian, you wanted to mention another issue about people/agents
20:47:15 [DanC]
(people/agents: asked and answered, no? action timbl)
20:48:46 [Chris]
i think mist text on agents was written withoutconsidering tht agent might include person
20:49:03 [Chris]
20:50:44 [Ian]
IJ: My point is not to define "agent" in another way, only that people have commented that some GPNs don't make sense for all types.
20:51:46 [Ian]
Issues manola6
20:51:56 [Ian]
20:52:03 [Ian]
20:52:13 [Ian]
20:52:20 [Ian]
20:53:26 [DanC]
manola6 is asking about "user agent", not "agent"
20:53:36 [Ian]
20:54:02 [Ian]
20:54:38 [Ian]
DC: I thought we said "Do so at your own risk."
20:54:59 [Ian]
20:55:23 [Ian]
DC: I suggest changing to "do so at their own risk."
20:55:27 [Ian]
TBL: What about "have no license to"
20:55:41 [Ian]
20:56:32 [Ian]
DC: I think this makes sense for people and software; could use some editorial fixing.
20:57:45 [Ian]
DC Proposal : Adjourn and work on actions during next 30 minutes.
20:58:35 [DanC]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
20:58:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Chris, Ian, Stuart, Norm, mario (muted), DanC, TimBL, Roy
20:59:15 [Ian]
IJ: I expect to do editorial work, tracking.
20:59:20 [Ian]
CL: [IJ missed]
20:59:30 [Ian]
SW: I shall be reviewing section 2.3 issues
20:59:37 [Ian]
NW: I shall be looking over section 3
20:59:39 [mario]
zakim, unmute me
20:59:39 [Zakim]
mario should no longer be muted
21:00:05 [Ian]
MJ: I will be helping CL with section 4.
21:00:24 [Ian]
[And sending comments to public-webarch-commetns]
21:00:33 [mario]
zakim, mute me
21:00:33 [Zakim]
mario should now be muted
21:00:45 [Ian]
DC: I need to mull over PH comments, respond to Kopecky
21:01:04 [Ian]
TBL: Follow up with David Booth
21:01:16 [Ian]
RF: Section 2, finish draft of URI spec this week.
21:02:19 [Ian]
21:02:25 [Zakim]
21:02:26 [Ian]
RRSAgent, stop