IRC log of tagmem on 2004-06-07
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 18:44:23 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
- 18:46:43 [DanC]
- DanC has joined #tagmem
- 19:01:21 [Zakim]
- TAG_Weekly()2:30PM has now started
- 19:01:29 [Zakim]
- +Roy
- 19:01:39 [Zakim]
- +Stuart
- 19:02:21 [Zakim]
- +[Lotus]
- 19:02:30 [Zakim]
- +Norm
- 19:02:34 [timbl]
- timbl has joined #tagmem
- 19:02:54 [Norm]
- Zakim, [Lotus is PaulC
- 19:02:54 [Zakim]
- +PaulC; got it
- 19:03:02 [mario]
- mario has joined #tagmem
- 19:03:16 [Zakim]
- +Ian
- 19:03:52 [Stuart]
- zakim, who is here?
- 19:03:52 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Roy, Stuart, PaulC, Norm, Ian
- 19:03:53 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see mario, timbl, DanC, RRSAgent, Stuart, Zakim, Norm, Ian
- 19:04:34 [Zakim]
- +??P4
- 19:04:34 [Stuart]
- zakim, who is here?
- 19:04:35 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Roy, Stuart, PaulC, Norm, Ian, ??P4
- 19:04:36 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see mario, timbl, DanC, RRSAgent, Stuart, Zakim, Norm, Ian
- 19:04:37 [Zakim]
- +TimBL
- 19:04:39 [Stuart]
- zakim, who is here?
- 19:04:41 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Roy, Stuart, PaulC, Norm, Ian, ??P4, TimBL
- 19:04:44 [mario]
- zakim, ??P4 is Mairo
- 19:04:49 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see mario, timbl, DanC, RRSAgent, Stuart, Zakim, Norm, Ian
- 19:04:51 [Zakim]
- +Mairo; got it
- 19:04:51 [mario]
- zakim, ??P4 is Mario
- 19:04:59 [Zakim]
- I already had ??P4 as Mairo, mario
- 19:05:09 [Zakim]
- +DanC
- 19:05:16 [mario]
- zakim, mairo is Mario
- 19:05:21 [Zakim]
- +Mario; got it
- 19:05:47 [Chris]
- Chris has joined #tagmem
- 19:05:55 [Zakim]
- -DanC
- 19:06:06 [Zakim]
- +DanC
- 19:06:07 [Chris]
- zakim, dial chris-617
- 19:06:07 [Zakim]
- ok, Chris; the call is being made
- 19:06:08 [Zakim]
- +Chris
- 19:06:56 [Zakim]
- -DanC
- 19:07:07 [Zakim]
- +DanC
- 19:07:16 [Chris]
- zakim, dial chris-617
- 19:07:16 [Zakim]
- ok, Chris; the call is being made
- 19:07:20 [Zakim]
- -Chris
- 19:08:18 [Zakim]
- -DanC
- 19:08:51 [Ian]
- Roll call: All present (while DC and CL fight to get on)
- 19:08:58 [Ian]
- Agenda:
- 19:09:04 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2004/06/07-tag
- 19:09:09 [Ian]
- Accept the minutes of the 12-14 May F2F?
- 19:09:15 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2004/05/14-tag-summary.html
- 19:09:19 [Ian]
- PC: Looked ok to me.
- 19:09:27 [Zakim]
- +DanC
- 19:09:48 [Ian]
- Anyone opposed to accepting ftf minutes?
- 19:10:05 [Ian]
- Resolved: Accept http://www.w3.org/2004/05/14-tag-summary.html as record of 12-14 May ftf meeting.
- 19:10:15 [Ian]
- Proposed: accept the minutes of the 24 May teleconference?
- 19:10:21 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2004/05/24-tag-summary.html
- 19:10:30 [Chris]
- zakim, drop chris-617
- 19:10:30 [Zakim]
- sorry, Chris, I do not see a party named 'chris-617'
- 19:10:34 [Chris]
- zakim, drop chris
- 19:10:34 [Zakim]
- sorry, Chris, I do not see a party named 'chris'
- 19:10:42 [Ian]
- SW: Anyone read them?
- 19:10:42 [Chris]
- zakim, passcode?
- 19:10:42 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 0824, Chris
- 19:10:47 [Ian]
- SW: Looked ok to me.
- 19:10:48 [Chris]
- yes I did
- 19:10:54 [Ian]
- CL, look ok?
- 19:10:54 [Chris]
- one of them, the one I was at
- 19:10:58 [Chris]
- i sent comments
- 19:11:27 [Ian]
- I think those comments were re: ftf meeting.
- 19:11:29 [Zakim]
- +Chris
- 19:12:20 [Ian]
- CL: Ftf minutes are ok, but we could do some work on the conclusion.
- 19:12:28 [Ian]
- SW: Any objections to accepting 24 May minutes?
- 19:12:31 [Ian]
- [None]
- 19:12:35 [Chris]
- not from me
- 19:12:45 [Ian]
- Resolved: accept http://www.w3.org/2004/05/24-tag-summary.html as meeting record for 24 May.
- 19:12:50 [Ian]
- ---------
- 19:13:08 [Ian]
- 2.2 httpRange-14 status
- 19:13:08 [Ian]
- Action TBL/RF 2004/05/13: Write up a summary position to close httpRange-14, text for document.
- 19:13:08 [Ian]
- Update of discussion on URI mailing list started by email from DC? What is next action (e.g., summary of that discussion to the TAG)?
- 19:13:21 [Ian]
- q+ to talk about upcoming changes in the spec.
- 19:13:36 [Ian]
- RF: I don't think there was much progress on the uri list. I didn't see evidence of any two points converging.
- 19:14:14 [Ian]
- [Sorry, this was agenda review]
- 19:14:16 [Ian]
- -----------------------------
- 19:14:21 [Ian]
- Next meeting 14 June?
- 19:14:24 [Ian]
- SW: My regrets for that meeting.
- 19:14:37 [Ian]
- NW will act as Chair.
- 19:14:46 [Ian]
- SW: I will also be on vacation the three weeks prior to our Aug ftf meeting.
- 19:15:03 [Ian]
- 9-11 Aug ftf meeting in Ottawa (resolved 2 March 2004)
- 19:15:15 [Ian]
- SW: I'll be unavailable from 19 July to 9 Aug.
- 19:15:31 [Norm]
- Ian, will you ping me later this week for the agenda?
- 19:15:49 [Ian]
- Likely no meeting 5 July.
- 19:15:52 [Ian]
- PC: I'm out last week of June.
- 19:15:57 [Ian]
- (And unavailable 5 July)
- 19:16:04 [Ian]
- (Monday 28 June)
- 19:16:22 [Ian]
- IJ unavailable 14 June.
- 19:16:33 [Ian]
- SW to TAG: Please indicate missed meetings on tag list.
- 19:16:48 [Ian]
- Resolved: Next meeting - 14 June; NW to Chair. Regrets: SW, TBL, IJ
- 19:16:51 [Ian]
- ----
- 19:16:55 [Ian]
- Ottowa ftf meeting.
- 19:17:03 [Ian]
- PC: I'll send info to tag list re: hotel.
- 19:17:16 [Ian]
- Arc Hotel
- 19:17:18 [Chris]
- arc hotel, ottawa
- 19:17:28 [Chris]
- I have stayed there before, its nice
- 19:17:32 [Ian]
- downtown ottowa; no block booking.
- 19:17:47 [Ian]
- PC: Any downtown hotel probably reasonable distance from this one.
- 19:17:54 [Norm]
- http://www.arcthehotel.com/
- 19:18:28 [Ian]
- PC: I'll list some options in email.
- 19:18:36 [Ian]
- PC: Key point is to be downtown.
- 19:18:55 [Chris]
- 9-11 mon to weds
- 19:18:56 [timbl]
- Regrets from tim for 14th and 28th June
- 19:18:59 [timbl]
- and regrests for any meetings in July or August except the face-face meeting.
- 19:19:07 [timbl]
- (and except possibly the last week)
- 19:19:12 [Ian]
- PC: Let me know when you will arrive in Ottawa (for social opportunities)
- 19:19:20 [Ian]
- ------------
- 19:19:27 [Ian]
- Proposals for F2F meeting venue in 5-7 October in Europe
- 19:19:27 [Ian]
- * Bristol. SW confirmed HP can host.
- 19:19:27 [Ian]
- * Basel. Awaiting more input from RF.
- 19:19:59 [Ian]
- Straw poll:
- 19:20:13 [Ian]
- RF: Video conf is available.
- 19:20:19 [Ian]
- (in Basel)
- 19:20:24 [Ian]
- PC: Mild preference for Basel.
- 19:20:29 [Chris]
- plus one to Basel
- 19:20:52 [Ian]
- MJ: PReference to Basel.
- 19:21:02 [Ian]
- MJ: PReference for Basel (can drive there...)
- 19:21:15 [Ian]
- Norm: Concur with the majority.
- 19:21:31 [Ian]
- zakim, pick a location
- 19:21:31 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'pick a location ', Ian
- 19:21:49 [Chris]
- resolved! Basel
- 19:21:49 [Ian]
- Resolved: Meet in Basel in October.
- 19:21:57 [Ian]
- RF to make arrangements.
- 19:22:09 [Ian]
- --------------
- 19:22:14 [Ian]
- AC meeting rescheduled for 2-3 December. Does this affect whether to hold TAG ftf meeting in November?
- 19:22:28 [Ian]
- SW: Postpone this discussion?
- 19:22:31 [Ian]
- Postponed
- 19:22:32 [Ian]
- -------------------
- 19:22:35 [Chris]
- Bâle is the French spelling, but its in German-speaking Switzerland
- 19:22:43 [Ian]
- 1.3 TAG Charter
- 19:22:43 [Ian]
- Action IJ 2004/12/14: Organize meeting between some of AB and some of TAG and Danny Weitzner to discuss patent policy and W3C charter.
- 19:22:43 [Ian]
- IJ: Advisory Board plans to discuss this at upcoming teleconference.
- 19:23:17 [Ian]
- To IJ: Please ensure that report from AB meeting gets back to TAG.
- 19:23:56 [Ian]
- Modify IJ action (and fix date) to report back from AB discussion.
- 19:24:02 [Ian]
- --------------------
- 19:24:08 [Ian]
- 2.1 Possible New Issues
- 19:24:08 [Ian]
- 1. XML 1.1 Question from XMLP-WG
- 19:24:11 [Ian]
- agenda?
- 19:24:18 [Ian]
- Initial email:
- 19:24:22 [Ian]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004May/0039.html
- 19:24:32 [Ian]
- [PC summarizing]
- 19:24:41 [Ian]
- PC: Qnames in xschema broken by xml 1.1.
- 19:24:46 [DanC]
- "broken"? an example scenario would help
- 19:24:55 [Ian]
- PC: I propose that the tag adopt this as an issue and then push to xml activity.
- 19:25:03 [Norm]
- A QName using an XML 1.1 character cannot be validated with Schema 1.0
- 19:25:12 [Ian]
- PC: I suggest that the TAG not spend lots of time on this.
- 19:25:24 [Norm]
- Characters in names is the more general issue
- 19:25:37 [Norm]
- s/names/Names/
- 19:25:54 [Zakim]
- +Roy_Fielding
- 19:25:57 [Zakim]
- -Roy
- 19:26:03 [Ian]
- NW: I agree that we should adopt an issue and hand it off to someone.
- 19:26:12 [Ian]
- q-
- 19:26:25 [Ian]
- CL: I agree with PC's plan generally, and sending it to XML CG appropriate.
- 19:26:35 [Ian]
- CL: I agree with NW that this is wider than schema.
- 19:26:38 [Stuart]
- ack Dan
- 19:26:38 [Zakim]
- DanC, you wanted to ask why this belongs on the TAG issues list, and shouldn't be handled by XML foo?
- 19:26:49 [Ian]
- DC: How does this impact architecture?
- 19:26:57 [Roy]
- Roy has joined #tagmem
- 19:26:58 [Chris]
- xml is architectural
- 19:27:01 [Ian]
- NW: I think that this goes beyond xml (e.g., n3)
- 19:27:17 [Ian]
- TBL: n3 doesn't make reference to the bnf in the xml spec.
- 19:27:19 [Chris]
- true, links *into* xml are affected
- 19:27:46 [Ian]
- CL: I think this is of the same ilk as the xml id issue.
- 19:28:09 [Ian]
- PC: XML CG likely to accept this issue from the TAG.
- 19:28:16 [Ian]
- [Example]
- 19:28:56 [Ian]
- NW: Take an xml doc that contains a qname that has one of the new unicode characters in it (i.e., in xml 1.1, not in xml 1.0). Now try to put an xpointer in a document that uses a qname. Which version of qnames does it use?
- 19:29:07 [Ian]
- NW: I mean in the local name part.
- 19:29:26 [Ian]
- DC: Did people see this coming at PR?
- 19:29:30 [Ian]
- PC: Yes.
- 19:29:49 [Ian]
- NW: I think W3C made the right decision, but that some loose ends need to be tied down.
- 19:30:01 [timbl]
- q+
- 19:30:09 [Ian]
- NW: I am for adopting the issue, helping getting it fixed.
- 19:30:22 [Ian]
- TBL: The way that xml 1.1 was presented was that it should only be used "when necessary."
- 19:30:37 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/
- 19:30:49 [Ian]
- Ethiopic?
- 19:30:55 [Ian]
- Ah, the language.
- 19:31:09 [Chris]
- its a script used by a large country in Africa
- 19:31:09 [Ian]
- NW: Need to use xml 1.1 if writing in ethiopian language.
- 19:31:40 [Roy]
- says +1 to issue
- 19:31:49 [Chris]
- +1 to issue
- 19:31:49 [Ian]
- [No objections to adopting this as an issue]
- 19:31:52 [Norm]
- +1
- 19:31:59 [Ian]
- PC: +1
- 19:32:01 [Ian]
- TBL: +1
- 19:32:04 [mario]
- +1
- 19:32:47 [Norm]
- xml11Names
- 19:32:49 [Ian]
- Proposed: Adopt this as issue xml11Names-46
- 19:32:55 [Ian]
- DC: I abstain.
- 19:33:04 [Ian]
- SW: I abstain
- 19:33:15 [Ian]
- Resolved: Adopt this as issue xml11Names-46.
- 19:33:27 [Ian]
- Action NW: WRite up the issue (and send to www-tag)?
- 19:33:33 [Ian]
- (or send where?)
- 19:33:49 [DanC]
- (didn't the XML CG punt it to us?)
- 19:33:50 [Ian]
- NW: I favor the XML CG as the recipient of this question.
- 19:34:19 [Ian]
- SW: I think issue arose in XMLP WG
- 19:34:22 [DanC]
- "to call the attention of the TAG and XML Co-ordination Group" -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004May/0039.html
- 19:34:46 [Ian]
- NW: I'll write up for TAG this week, then if no objections, forward it to XML CG on behalf of TAG.
- 19:35:04 [Ian]
- -------------
- 19:35:11 [Ian]
- 2.2 httpRange-14 status
- 19:35:11 [Ian]
- Action TBL/RF 2004/05/13: Write up a summary position to close httpRange-14, text for document.
- 19:35:11 [Ian]
- Update of discussion on URI mailing list started by email from DC? What is next action (e.g., summary of that discussion to the TAG)?
- 19:35:28 [Ian]
- q+ to mention upcoming draft and relation to this issue.
- 19:36:11 [Ian]
- RF: There is no proposed resolution that any two people can firmly agree to.
- 19:36:16 [Ian]
- (on the discussion list)
- 19:37:14 [Ian]
- SW: The title of RFC2396 concerns generic syntax...
- 19:37:17 [timbl]
- q-
- 19:37:19 [Ian]
- RF: IANA requirements require a bit more than that.
- 19:37:20 [Roy]
- q+
- 19:37:35 [Ian]
- ack Roy
- 19:37:57 [Ian]
- RF: I need to incorporate (into RFC2396bis) comments in 2.7.1.7 and 2.7.1.8.
- 19:38:00 [Ian]
- (as well)
- 19:38:22 [Ian]
- RF: The latter needs to go into the RFC since it doesn't really make sense in an informational draft.
- 19:38:27 [Ian]
- RF: Those are both cut-and-paste actions.
- 19:38:39 [Ian]
- RF: The spec has primarily been held up due to travel, not the definition.
- 19:39:15 [Ian]
- RF: The spec won't progress with the current defn; I don't know what the change will be to enable progression.
- 19:39:21 [Ian]
- RF: Proposing concrete text would help.
- 19:39:32 [Ian]
- DC: I was a bit surprised at direction of discussion.
- 19:39:55 [Ian]
- RF: The issue looks resolvable; finding the right words is the problem.
- 19:40:16 [DanC]
- the thread http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004May/thread.html#26 is fairly long
- 19:40:24 [Ian]
- RF: Lots of disagreement about definition of "resource".
- 19:40:36 [Ian]
- RF: In my opinion, it seems that people are confused about what a resource is and what it can be.
- 19:40:49 [DanC]
- ah; and Larry started another thread on the same topic. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004May/thread.html#50
- 19:40:54 [Ian]
- RF: Not sure whether progress will be (1) clearer understanding or (2) less present definition.
- 19:41:36 [Ian]
- RF: I don't see obstacles to consensus, but discussion has not converged.
- 19:42:00 [Ian]
- q?
- 19:42:05 [Ian]
- ack Ian
- 19:42:05 [Zakim]
- Ian, you wanted to mention upcoming draft and relation to this issue.
- 19:42:55 [Ian]
- -----------
- 19:43:03 [Ian]
- Next editor's draft: 8 June
- 19:43:19 [Ian]
- Action NW: Propose text on tradeoffs for section 4.2.2.
- 19:43:33 [Ian]
- NW: No progress.
- 19:43:48 [Ian]
- Action CL: Rewrite story at beginning of 3.3.1. Consider deleting para that follows last sentence third para after story in 3.3.1. "Note also that since dereferencing a URI (e.g., using HTTP) does not involve sending a fragment identifier to a server or other agent, certain access methods (e.g., HTTP PUT, POST, and DELETE) cannot be used to interact with secondary resources."
- 19:45:22 [Ian]
- Section 3.3.1 Media Types and Fragment Identifier Semantics
- 19:45:40 [DanC]
- 3.3.1. Media Types and Fragment Identifier Semantics
- 19:45:44 [Chris]
- I don't see it in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html
- 19:45:47 [Stuart]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/actions_owner.html
- 19:45:48 [DanC]
- under http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/#internet-media-type
- 19:46:17 [DanC]
- actions_owner.html is not exhaustive
- 19:46:31 [Chris]
- ok, got it, its listed in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/actions_owner.html
- 19:46:51 [Ian]
- SW: Anybody finish any of their LC issues?
- 19:46:58 [Ian]
- (i.e., actions associated with LC issues)?
- 19:48:04 [Ian]
- kopecky3:
- 19:48:08 [Ian]
- Action IJ and CL to draft a proposal to address this issue. (No clear direction from 14 May 2004 minutes, but there was discussion about whether the content was "designed for presentation".)
- 19:48:36 [Ian]
- ---------------
- 19:49:14 [Ian]
- DC: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html#kopecky5
- 19:49:20 [Ian]
- DC: I mailed him; he mailed back.
- 19:49:52 [DanC]
- and he responded 30 mar http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JanMar/1071.html
- 19:50:37 [Ian]
- IJ: that will be in tomorrow's draft!
- 19:50:55 [Ian]
- "One particularly useful mapping is to combine the
- 19:50:55 [Ian]
- namespace URI, a hash ("#"), and the local name, thus creating a URI
- 19:50:55 [Ian]
- for a secondary resource (the identified term)."
- 19:51:09 [Ian]
- IJ: I think that is relevant.
- 19:52:06 [Ian]
- IJ: Ah, I wasn't talking about qnames specifically.
- 19:52:53 [Ian]
- IJ: I will bind what I am writing to Jacek's comments.
- 19:53:00 [Ian]
- Resolved: Close DC's action for kopecky 5.
- 19:53:06 [Roy]
- I would add "(assuming the namespace is flat)" somewhere
- 19:53:30 [Ian]
- (RF: Only useful if the namespace is flat)
- 19:53:54 [Ian]
- DC: Also mention the one that has more wrinkles - schema component designators.
- 19:54:05 [DanC]
- XML Schema: Component Designators http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xmlschema-ref-20040309/
- 19:54:15 [Ian]
- [PC leaves]
- 19:54:21 [Zakim]
- -PaulC
- 19:54:53 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1
- 19:55:28 [mario]
- Would it make sense to reference to the SCD document from the Web Arch one?
- 19:55:29 [Ian]
- ---------
- 19:55:53 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#stickler7
- 19:56:41 [Ian]
- s/Web resource/resource
- 19:56:47 [Ian]
- [editorial]
- 19:57:12 [Ian]
- IJ: I think that this one is subsumed "Section 3.4, para 1, last sentence:"
- 19:57:24 [Ian]
- ALso: Section 3.4, para 2:
- 19:57:41 [Ian]
- IJ: I think Eidtor's draft will address stickler 7
- 19:58:35 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1
- 20:00:49 [Chris]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#hawke3
- 20:00:54 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/#URI-overloading
- 20:00:57 [DanC]
- (better to use technical keywords rather than section numbers and other indirect mechanisms, perhaps, Ian)
- 20:01:03 [Chris]
- so does the reference to uuid still appear?
- 20:01:06 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/#uri-ownership
- 20:01:08 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/#uri-ownership
- 20:01:13 [Ian]
- he generation of a fairly large random number or a checksum reduces the risk of URI overloading to a calculated small risk. A draft "uuid" scheme adopted this approach; one could also imagine a scheme based on md5 checksums.
- 20:01:55 [Ian]
- DC: s/fairly//
- 20:02:31 [Chris]
- CL attempts to summarize
- 20:02:52 [Ian]
- DC: I propose to either (1) move to future directions or (2) strike the bits about uuid and md5
- 20:02:54 [Roy]
- neither uuid nor mmdf are used because they do not prevent collisions
- 20:03:11 [Chris]
- its future or non-adopted work, so does not conflict with tag to use only registered schemes
- 20:03:58 [Chris]
- support moving to futre directions, unless we think its a failed approach
- 20:04:16 [Roy]
- q+
- 20:04:28 [Ian]
- q+
- 20:04:41 [Ian]
- DC: I'd rather strike than move to future directions at this point.
- 20:04:45 [Ian]
- RF: I'd remove it.
- 20:04:51 [Ian]
- CL: I'd move to future directions.
- 20:05:06 [Chris]
- support removing it also; not hearing that its likely future direction
- 20:05:13 [Ian]
- RF: I don't consider these to be identifiers. md5, e.g., doesn't prevent collisions, but reduces risk.
- 20:05:30 [Ian]
- RF: Given a document repository the size of the web, there is a guarantee that there are colliding docs on the web.
- 20:05:39 [Ian]
- TBL: UUIDs have a delegated part.
- 20:05:39 [Stuart]
- q?
- 20:05:45 [Stuart]
- ack Roy
- 20:05:48 [Ian]
- RF: If properly constructed, yes.
- 20:05:52 [Chris]
- rf also said that its fragile, any edit to the resource gives a new uuid
- 20:06:02 [Ian]
- RF: If properly constructed, have same properties as mid syntax.
- 20:06:20 [Ian]
- MJ: Large random numbers are unwieldly.
- 20:06:33 [Ian]
- TBL: Large random numbers technically work, but raise social issues.
- 20:07:36 [DanC]
- tim, yes, lots of things might be interesting in the fullness of time. meanwhile, nobody has done the homework to finish the uuid: scheme. Let's strike discussion of it, no?
- 20:08:07 [Ian]
- IJ propose: delete second bullet and mention large numbers in third bullet; delete uuid and md5
- 20:08:17 [Chris]
- Mario, that was my point exactly, its a theoretical example
- 20:09:36 [Ian]
- TBL: Say "hypothetical"?
- 20:09:47 [Roy]
- strike
- 20:09:48 [Ian]
- SW: Who would like to see the middle example on large numbers struck?
- 20:09:50 [Norm]
- strike
- 20:09:55 [Ian]
- strike
- 20:09:57 [Ian]
- CL: strike
- 20:10:01 [Ian]
- SW: strike
- 20:10:22 [Ian]
- q+
- 20:10:26 [timbl]
- TBL: Concur
- 20:10:31 [Ian]
- q-
- 20:10:46 [DanC]
- you'll have to tweak "the above approaches"
- 20:10:50 [Ian]
- Action IJ: Remove the middle bullet from 2.3.
- 20:12:42 [Ian]
- DC: Note that mid/cid also use domain names; the number part looks like a file name.
- 20:13:15 [timbl]
- _________
- 20:13:19 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/issues.html?view=normal&closed=1#hawke7
- 20:13:20 [DanC]
- hmm... the future direction stuff about p2p systems and such is gone. I wonder if I have energy to get it put back.
- 20:13:58 [Ian]
- IJ: I note for hawke6 that we talked about at ftf and didn't adopt.
- 20:14:20 [Ian]
- For hawk7, I've incorporated into draft.
- 20:14:59 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/#identifiers-future
- 20:15:15 [Ian]
- TBL: I think that this makes sense.
- 20:15:33 [Ian]
- 2.7.2. Assertion that Two URIs Identify the Same Resource
- 20:15:44 [timbl]
- No! /TBL/s/.*//
- 20:16:04 [Ian]
- s/to/two
- 20:16:14 [Ian]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040510/#identifiers-future
- 20:16:21 [Ian]
- 2.7. Future Directions for Identifiers
- 20:16:22 [timbl]
- Ian, DanC asked you about what your issue list summary meant, and I tried to explain, as you seemed not to understand /respond to the question.
- 20:16:28 [Ian]
- 2.7.2. Assertion that Two URIs Identify the Same Resource
- 20:16:32 [timbl]
- (i dio not say anything made sense)
- 20:17:11 [Ian]
- Question: Keep "Note also that to URIs that are sameAs one another does not mean they are interchangeable. For instance, suppose that two different organizations own the URIs "http://weather.example.org/stations/oaxaca#ws17a" and "http://weather.example.com/rdfdump?region=oaxaca&station=ws17a". The URIs might both identify the same resource, a certain collection of weather-measuring equipment shared by the two organizations. Although the URIs might be declared "owl:s
- 20:17:11 [Ian]
- ameAs" each other, the two URI owners might provide very different content when the URIs are dereferenced."?
- 20:17:25 [Ian]
- --
- 20:17:39 [Ian]
- TBL: In RDF, sameAs applies to resources.
- 20:18:09 [timbl]
- <ttp://weather.example.org/stations/oaxaca#ws17a"> owl:sameAs <http://weather.example.com/rdfdump?region=oaxaca&station=ws17a>.
- 20:18:10 [Ian]
- IJ: I believe some folks commented on this text at the ftf meeting.
- 20:18:21 [DanC]
- no, I can't endorse "Note also that to URIs that are sameAs one another ...
- 20:18:39 [Ian]
- RF, SW: I don't follow this para.
- 20:18:59 [Ian]
- TBL: If two URIs identify the same resource, that doesn't mean that you can use them interchangeably.
- 20:19:01 [Ian]
- DC: Yes it does.
- 20:19:06 [Ian]
- q+
- 20:19:14 [DanC]
- (timbl was quoting/paraphrasing, I think)
- 20:19:31 [Ian]
- TBL: Suppose you use "#" in both of them; so they both refer to the same weather station.
- 20:19:55 [Ian]
- TBL: Sandro is saying that you can, e.g., put one or the other in an RDF statement.
- 20:20:08 [Ian]
- TBL: But if you dereference them you'll get different information back.
- 20:20:43 [Ian]
- SW: The two URIs denote the same resource but identify two different information resources?
- 20:20:50 [Ian]
- (SW cites Pat Hayes...)
- 20:21:16 [Ian]
- TBL: We use "identify" in the arch doc, not "denote".
- 20:21:50 [Ian]
- s/interchangeable/interchangeable for purposes other than identification/ ?
- 20:22:37 [Stuart]
- No... Stuart suggests a a response that Pat *might* have made - but Stuart was being speculative - he was not quoting.
- 20:23:25 [Ian]
- DC: I don't think this point is worth making (and I don't believe it).
- 20:23:59 [Norm]
- Any argument that says something would be true for URIs of one scheme that's false for URIs of another scheme makes me wince
- 20:26:28 [Ian]
- DC: The resources are interchangeable, the URIs are spelled differently.
- 20:26:41 [Ian]
- TBL: But it makes a difference which one you use.
- 20:27:12 [Ian]
- TBL: If SH intentionally didn't use a "#" in the second URI, then I don't understand his question.
- 20:27:29 [Ian]
- Proposed: Ask SH for clarification - was "#" dropped by mistake in second URI?
- 20:27:50 [Ian]
- Action TBL: Ask Sandro for clarification on whether second URI should have "#".
- 20:28:17 [Ian]
- ADJOURNED
- 20:28:23 [Ian]
- RRSAgent, stop